THE
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE,
JOURNAL OF THE NUMISMATIC SOCIETY.
f AND
JOURNAL
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY.
EDITED BY
SIR JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., D.C.L., LL.D., Sc.D., F.R.S., V.P.S.A.,
CORBESPONDANT DE L'lNSTJTUT DB FRANCE,
BARCLAY V. HEAD, D.C.L., PH.D.,
KBEPEB OF COINS, BEITI8H MUSEUM,
MEMBER OF THE IMPEETAL GERMAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE,
HON. MEMBER OP THE NUMISMATIC SOCIETY OF VIENNA,
HERBERT A. GRUEBER, F.S.A.,
A8SI8TANT-KEEPEB OP COINS, BBITISH MUSEUM,
AND
EDWARD J. RAPSON, M.A., M.R.A.S.
FOURTH SERIES. VOL. I.
V
'
Factum abiit monumenta manent. Ov. Fast.
LONDON :
BERNARD QUARITCH, 15, PICCADILLY.
PARIS: MM. EOLLIN ET FEUARDENT, PLACE LOUVOIS, No. 4.
1901.
V.
LONDON :
PRINTED BY H. VIRTUE AND COMPANY, LIMITED,
CITY ROAD.
NUMISMATIC HISTORY
OF THE REIGN OF
HENRY I.
(11001135)
BY
W. J. ANDREW,
OF CADSTEE, WHALEY BRIDGE.
PLATES. Vll
LIST OF PLATES CONTAINED IN VOL. I.
Plates
I. Seal of Henry I.
II. VIII. Coins of Henry I.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NUMISMATIC
SOCIETY.
SESSION 19001901.
OCTOBER 18, 1900.
SIR JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., D.C.L., LL.D., Sc.D., F.B.S., F.S.A.,
F.G.S., President, in the Chair.
Alfred Charles Cronin, Esq., was proposed, and Stephen W.
Bushell, Esq., M.D., C.B., was admitted a Member of the
Society.
The following Presents were announced and laid upon the
table :
1. Revue Suisse de Numismatique. Vol. ix. 2 me livr.
2. Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien.
Nos. 202-206.
8. Monete Romane, 2 da ediz. By F. Gnecchi. From the
Publisher, Sig. Ulrico Hoepli.
4. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,
1898-1899.
5. Les Monnaies Sino-Kharoshthi, and Une Monnaie bilingue
Indo-Sassanide. By E. Drouin. From the Author.
6. L'Art du Medailleur en Belgique. By Julien Simonis,
From the Author.
a
A PROCEEDINGS OF THE
7. Photographs of the Casa dei Vetti at Pompoii. From Sir
John Evans, K.C.B., President.
8. Revue Beige de Numismatique. 3 me et 4 me livr., 1900.
9. Revue Numismatique. 2 me et 3 me trim., 1900.
10. Tiers de Blanc anonyme frappe a Herpen. By Vicomte
B. de Jonghe. From the Author.
11. Bulletin historique de la Societe des Antiquaires de la
Morinie. Livr. 194
12. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol. v. No. 5.
13. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica. Vol. xiii. Fasc. 2, 1900.
14. Bulletin de Numismatique. Mai Aout, 1900.
15. Journal of Hellenic Studies. Vol. xx.
16. The Canadian Antiquarian. Vol. ii. Nos. 2 4.
17. Catalogue of Greek coins in the British Museum
Lycaonia, Isauria, and Cilicia. By G. F. Hill. From the
Trustees of the British Museum.
18. La Gazette Numismatique. Nos. 6 10, 4 m annee,
and No. 1, 5 me anne"e.
19. Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de 1'Ouest. l re et
2 me trim., 1900.
20. Report on the Government Museum at Madras, 1899
1900.
21. American Journal of Archaeology. Vol. iv. No. 1.
22. Steirische Miinzkunde. By F. Pickler. From Sir John
Evans, K.C.B., President.
The meeting approved an Address of Condolence to His
Majesty the King of Italy on the recent assassination of his
illustrious Father, and directed that it should be signed on
behalf of the Society by the President and the Hon. Secretaries.
Mr. Augustus Prevost, F.S.A., exhibited a New Jersey Con-
federate cent with a figure of an Indian on the obverse and sun
and stars on the reverse, the dies for which are said to have
been engraved by Thomas Wyon.
Mr. L. A. Lawrence exhibited a penny of Ceolwulf I of
Mercia with the moneyer's name " Oba," and casts of an
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. O
identical piece in the Hunter collection, and specimens of the Can-
terbury sede vacante series, all bearing the same moneyer's name ;
and also a half-noble of Edward III with different styles of
lettering on the obverse and reverse.
Mr. F. A. Walters showed a pattern half-sovereign of Edward
VI with the bare head, and having the " Timor Domini" legend
on the obverse.
Mr. Talbot Eeady exhibited a hecte of Lesbos with the head
of Pallas, and on the reverse two female (?) heads facing each
other, but one superimposed.
Mr. H. A. Grueber showed the South African medal lately
issued by the mint at Birmingham, and the work of Emil Fuchs.
The President exhibited a photograph of a large rilievo which
is now in the Forum at Eome, and which illustrates the remis-
sion of taxes by the Emperor Trajan and the burning of the
deeds (claria) connected with them. Attention was drawn to
coins of Hadrian recording a similar event during his reign.
The legend on these coins, " reliqua vetera sestertium novies
millies abolita," shows that the sum remitted by Hadrian was
upwards of seven millions sterling.
Mr. Samuel Smith gave an account of the Soudanese coinage
struck by the Mahdi and the late Khalifa, Abdullah. The
coinage began in A.H. 1302 (= A.D. 1884), and consisted of the
100 piastres in gold, a servile copy of the Egyptian pound, and
the medjidieh of 20 piastres in silver. These were the
only pieces issued by the Mahdi; but his successor, the
Khalifa, struck pieces of 20, 10, 5, and 2 piastres in silver,
and of 10 paras in copper, but no gold. At first the silver
coins were of pure metal, but the Khalifa soon began to debase
the coinage, so that in a few years it degenerated into mere
pieces of copper washed with silver. The latest pieces known
are of A.H. 1315 (= A.D. 1897).
4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
NOVEMBEB 15, 1900.
SIB JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., President, in the Chair.
Alfred Charles Cronin, Esq., was elected a Member. The
Eight Hon. John Lubbock, Baron Avebury, and Kobert
Nicholas Roskell, Esq., were proposed, and F. G. Hilton-
Price, Esq., F.S.A., and Dr. Philip Nelson, were admitted
Members of the Society.
The following Presents were announced and laid upon the
table :
1. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.
Vol. xxx. Part III.
2. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica. Vol. xiii. Fasc. 3, 1900.
8. American Numismatic and Archaeological Society. Pro-
ceedings of the Annual Meeting, 1900.
4. Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien.
No. 207.
5. Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historic. Bind
xv. Heft 12.
6. La Gazette Numismatique. No. 2, 1900.
The President reported that he had received from His
Majesty the King of Italy, through the Master of the House-
hold, a grateful acknowledgment of the Address of Condolence
voted at the previous meeting.
Mr. P. Carlyon-Britton exhibited a series of unpublished
Anglo-Saxon pennies of ^Ethelstan, Eadwig, and Eadgar from
his collection.
Dr. P. Nelson showed a proof penny of the Isle of Man of
1723, a proof farthing of 1696, a half-penny of 1718 struck
over a shilling of William III, and a proof in gold of the gun-
money half-crown of April, 1690.
Mr. L. Forrer exhibited a gold coin or presentation piece of
the Maharaja of Travancore, dated 1881, and bearing his por-
trait and arms, also a series of gold coins of the same state.
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY.
Mr. Talbot Ready showed a tridrachm of Byzantium with
the bull on the obverse, and on the reverse Hercules strangling
the serpents, as on the alliance coins of Ehodes, Cnidus,
Ephesus, Samos, &c.
The President read a paper on the first gold coins of Eng-
land, the issues referred to being the penny of Henry III and
the florin and its parts of Edward III. See vol. xx. p. 218.
DECEMBER 20, 1900.
SIR JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., President, in the Chair.
The Right Hon. John Lubbock, Baron Avebury, and Robert
Nicholas Roskell, Esq., were elected, and Alfred Charles
Cronin, Esq., was admitted a Member of the Society.
The following Presents were announced and laid upon the
table :
1. Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien.
No. 208.
2. The Natural History of Phosphatic Deposits and Naphe-
line-Syenite and its Associates in the North-West of Scotland.
By J. J. H. Teall. From the Author.
3. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol. vi. No. 1.
4. Bulletin Historique de la Societe des Antiquaires de la
Morinie. Livr. 195.
5. American Journal of Archaeology. Vol. iv. Nos. 2 3.
6. Bulletin de Numismatique. Sept. Oct., 1900.
7. Plans and Drawings of Athenian Buildings. By J. H.
Middleton and E. A. Gardner. From the Hellenic Society.
8. The Origin, Development, and Aims of our Scientific
Societies. By Sir John Evans, K.C.B., President.
9. Archseologia Aeliana. Vol. xxii. Part II.
The President exhibited a Bristol copper token of the six-
6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
teenth century, which had been found in Pitstone Churchyard,
near Tring, together with silver coins of Elizabeth.
Mr. C. H. Bead, F.S.A., exhibited a circular lead weight,
stamped with a fleur-de-lis between the letters G D, and with
a representation of the reverse type of the English halfpenny
of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, but bearing the inscrip-
tion POIS D'ESTERLIN. It weighs 7,583 grains, or 500
sterlings of 15-16 grains each, the weight of the penny from
Henry IV to Edward IV being at 15 grains.
Mr. Thomas Bliss showed proofs in silver and pewter of the
gun-money crown of James II, and a proof in silver of the half-
crown, and also a specimen in gold of the badge of a club
called " The Order of Blue and Orange," which was formed
about 1727 by officers of the King's Own Eegiment of Foot to
uphold the succession of the house of Hanover..
Mr. A. E. Copp showed a Newark shilling with the hall-mark
for 1640.
Mr. Warwick Wroth communicated a paper on "The Re-
arrangement of Parthian Coinage." The arrangement of this
difficult series generally accepted is that proposed by Professor
Percy Gardner in his monograph on the subject published in
1877. Since that date a number of important discoveries have
been made, especially of tetradrachms having a marked resem-
blance in type and fabric to the contemporary Seleucid coinage.
Mr. Wroth pointed out that the new evidence derived from
this source made some of Professor Gardner's conclusions un-
tenable, and gave reasons for what seemed to him to be the
most probable order of succession of the a rthian coins from
the beginning of the kingdom down to the reign of Phraates
IV. See vol. xx., p. 181.
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY.
JANUARY 17, 1901.
SIR HENRY H. HOWORTH, K.C.I.E., F.R.S., Vice-President,
in the Chair.
Lionel Lawford Fletcher, Esq., and Frank E. Macfadyen,
Esq., were proposed as Members of the Society.
The following presents were announced and laid upon the
table :
1. Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik. Band xxii. Heft 4.
2. Foreningen til Norske Fortidsmindesmerkers Bevaring.
Aarsberetning for 1898.
3. Kunst og Handwork fra Norges Fortid. Part IV.
4. Medals, Jetons, and Tokens, illustrative of the Science of
Medicine (continuation). By Dr. H. R. Storer. From the
Author.
5. Numismatic Circular. Vol. VIII. 1900. From Messrs.
Spink and Son.
6. Archaeologia Cantiana. Vol. xxiv. From the Kent
Archaeological Society.
7. Revue Numismatique. 4 me livr., 1900.
8. Revue Beige de Numismatique. l re livr., 1901.
9. Proces-Verbaux du Congres international de Numisma-
tique. 1900. From Lady Evans.
10. Le Role de la Numismatique dans le Mouvement Scien-
tifique Contemporain. By E. Gabrici. From the Author.
11. Le Dati delle Monete d'Augusto. By G. Dattari.
From the Author.
12. Un Demi-Gros a 1'Ecu frappe a Schoonvorst. By
Vicomte B. de Jonghe. From the Author.
18. Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien.
No. 209.
14. La Gazette Numismatique. Dec. 1900.
Mr. W. J. Andrew exhibited two pennies of David I of
8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
Scotland, struck at Edinburgh and Roxburgh, of similar type
to coins of Stephen, having the bust with sceptre on the obverse
and a cross moline with lis on the reverse. As these two
coins were in the Nottingham hoard, they must have been
issued before 1141.
Mr. L. A. Lawrence exhibited a piece of Chinese sycee
" Shoe Money," of the value of 10 taels ; a rupee of the
British East Africa Company, and a mis-struck sovereign of the
Perth Mint in Australia.
Mr. L. Forrer showed a Swiss twenty-franc piece of 1897
coined from gold obtained from the Gondo Mine, Graubiinden.
To distinguish the coins struck from this gold from others
issued by the Swiss Mint, a small cross is placed on the
Federal cross on the reverse.
Mr. W. J. Hocking exhibited specimens of the new silver
coinage for Cyprus, consisting of pieces of the current values
of eighteen, nine, four and a-half, and three piastres, equivalent
to the English florin, shilling, sixpence, and fourpence.
Mr. W. J. Webster exhibited a pattern penny of the Orange
Free State made in 1888.
Mr. P. Carlyon-Britton read a paper on some coins of
Bedwin and Marlborough in Wilts. The only known coins of
the former mint are of the reigns of Edward the Confessor and
William I, and the only moneyer's name which appears on
them is " Cilda," who was transferred to Marlborough soon
after A.D. 1066, when the Bedwin mint ceased operations.
Mr. L. A. Lawrence read a paper on a find of silver coins
extending from Edward IV to Henry VIII. The hoard con-
sisted mainly of groats of the second issue of Henry VIII, and
the evidence offered by them suggested a slight change in the
order of the mint-marks, viz., the placing of the pheon mark
towards the end rather than towards the beginning of the
issue. From the portrait of the king on these groats Mr. Law-
rence was in favour of an earlier date than 1526 for the com-
mencement of the second issue ; but in a discussion which
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 9
ensued Mr. Grueber pointed out that as, with one exception,
all the mint-marks of the silver coins occurred on the gold
crowns and half-crowns, which were not ordered till 1526,
both coinages must have been contemporaneous.
FEBRUARY 21, 1901.
SIR HENRY H. HOWORTH, K.C.I.E., F.R.S., Vice-President, in
the Chair.
Lionel Lawford Fletcher, Esq., and Frank E. Macfadyen,
Esq., were elected Members of the Society. The Rev. Cooper
Kennett Henderson was nominated and Robert Nicholas
Roskell, Esq., was admitted a Member.
The following presents were announced and laid upon the
table :
1. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica. Fasc. 4, 1900.
2. Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien.
No. 211.
3. La Gazette Numismatique. No. 5. 1901.
4. Additional corns of the Present Dynasty of China. By
Stephen W. Bushell, Esq., M.D., C.B. From the Author.
5. Classement des Monnaies Carolingiennes, and La Numis-
matique de Louis XVHI dans les Provinces Beiges. By P.
Bordeaux. From the Author.
6. Bulletin historique de la Societe des Antiquaires de la
Morinie. 196 livr.
7. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.
4th quarter. 1900.
8. Transactions of the Japan Society. 1898-9.
9. Bulletin de Numismatique. Nov. Dec., 1900.
10. Foreningen til Norske Fortidsmindesmerkers Bevaring.
Aarsberetning for 1899.
b
10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
The meeting approved an Address of Condolence to His
Majesty the King on the death of the late Queen, and of con-
gratulation on His Majesty's accession to the throne.
The Hon. Secretary, Mr. H. A. Grueber, exhibited a small
silver coin of the British chief Verica, which had been found
near Challow, in Berks, and is the property of Mr. J. N. Barnes,
of Lambourne. It has on the obverse a laureate head, similar to
that on the coins of Tiberius, and the legend VERIO, and on the
reverse o. F. (CommiiFilius) within a torque. See Vol. xx.,p. 264.
Mr. L. A. Lawrence showed two half- groats of London,
belonging to the heavy coinage of Edward IV, and therefore
struck before his fourth year.
Mr. T. Bliss exhibited some very rare siege pieces of Beeston
Castle, Carlisle, and Scarborough, struck during the reign of
Charles I, and of Pontefract under Charles II, the last piece
being dated 1648.
Mr. W. C. Boyd showed an unpublished farthing token of
Charles I, having the sceptres within the inner circle and a bird
for mint-mark.
Mr. F. A. Walters read a paper on the last silver coinage
(1869-77) of Edward III, in which he described several groats
belonging to a transitional period, which proved that the
resumption of the title of King of France on the coinage by
Edward did not immediately follow the violation of the Treaty
of Bretigny. He also showed that annulet stops continued to
be used on the last coinage, and transferred to this period a
Durham penny which hitherto had been classed to a date pre-
vious to 1860.
MARCH 21, 1901.
BIR HENRY H. HOWORTH, K.C.I.E., F.R.S., Vice-President,
in the Chair.
The Rev. Cooper Kennett Henderson was elected, and
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 11
Lionel Lawford Fletcher, Esq. was admitted a Member of the
Society.
The following presents were announced and laid upon the
table :
1. Appunti di Numismatica Alessandrina. By GK Dattari.
From the Author.
2. Un Dirhem Inconnu. By Baron W. von Tiesenhausen.
From the Author.
3. La Gazette Numismatique. No. 6, Mars, 1901.
4. American Journal of Archaeology. No. 4, 1900, and
Annual Report.
5. Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de 1'Ouest. 8 me trim.,
1901.
6. Bonner Jahrbiicher. Heft 106.
7. Annual of the British School at Athens. No. VI.
Mr. L. A. Lawrence exhibited a series of pennies of Henry I,
showing, with one exception, all the types used during his
reign.
Mr. F. A. Walters showed a half-groat, struck at York by
Archbishop Bainbridge, and a half-groat and a penny of Can-
terbury, issued by Archbishop Wareham. All the coins
belonged to the first issue of Henry VIII.
Mr. T. Bliss exhibited a crown, half-crown, shilling, and
fourpence of the Irish Inchiquin money ; a Dublin crown of
the same period, and two siege-piece shillings of Colchester.
Mr. J. E. Pritchard showed a square Bristol farthing of the
sixteenth century.
Mr. Grueber read a paper, by M. A. Blanchet and himself,
on " Treasure-Trove, its Laws and Customs." M. Blanchet
gave an account of the law of treasure-trove during Roman
imperial times in Italy, and at a more recent date in France.
In the latter case he pointed out that customary rights in many
districts invalidated any claim of the sovereign to treasure-
trove. On the other hand, Mr. Grueber showed that, unless by
12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
special grant, the Crown had never relaxed its privilege, and as
evidence referred to the laws of Edward the Confessor, Wil-
liam I, and Henry I, and to permissions to seek, for treasure
specially granted in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth
centuries. Mr. Grueber also referred to the recent regulation
of H.M. Treasury under which finders not only are awarded
the coins and objects not required for the national institutions,
but also the antiquarian value of such as may be retained,
minus twenty-five or ten per cent., according to the nature of
the objects.
APRIL 18, 1901.
SIR JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., President in the Chair.
The Rev. Cooper Kennett Henderson was admitted, and
Stewart A. McDowall, Esq. and Percy Henry Webb, Esq.
were proposed as Members of the Society.
The following presents were announced and laid upon the
table :
1. Revue Beige de Numismatique. 2 me livr., 1901.
2. Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien.
No. 212.
3. Revue Numismatique. l er trim., 1901.
4. Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie. Bind xv.
Heft 3-4, 1900.
5. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.
Vol. xxxi. Part I.
6. Les Monnaies des derniers Comtes de Reckheim. By
Vicomte B. de Jonghe. From the Author.
7. Journal of Hellenic Studies. Vol. xxi. Pt. I.
8. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution. 1898.
The President exhibited a series of aurei, in splendid con-
dition, of Pertinax, Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla,
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 13
Geta, etc. ; also a copper coin of Athens of imperial times
showing on the reverse a military figure placing a Persian cap-
tive before a trophy, supposed to be copied from a relief on the
memorial erected to those who fell at Marathon.
Mr. L. Bardasano sent for exhibition a photograph of a large
and unique silver medal engraved with the scene of a naval
action, which was awarded to John Breton, a Guernsey pilot,
who, on June 8th, 1794, by skilful seamanship, prevented the
capture, off Guernsey, of H.M.S. Eurydice by a French
squadron. The medal was presented to Breton by Major-
Gen. Small, the Lieutenant-Govern or of the Island.
Mr. P. Carlyon-Britton read a paper " On the Coins of Wil-
liam I and II and the Sequence of the Types." After referring
to the law of Monetagium, which restricted a change of type in
the coinage to every third year, the writer proceeded to classify
the coins in their chronological order, assigning eight distinct
types to William I, and five to William II. This classification
enabled Mr. Carlyon-Britton to offer some suggestions respect-
ing the period of division of the coinage of the two reigns, a
question which hitherto had baffled the ingenuity of numis-
matists. In support of his views he cited the evidence of the
more important finds of coins of that period. Series of coins
illustrating the papers were exhibited by Mr. Carlyon-Britton
and Mr. L. A. Lawrence from their Cabinets.
MAY 16, 1901.
SIB JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., President, in the Chair.
Stewart A. McDowall, Esq. and Percy Henry Webb, Esq.
were elected, and Isidore Kozminsky, Esq. was nominated a
Member of the Society.
The following presents were announced and laid upon the
table :
14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
1. Revue Suisse de Numismatique. Tome x. l re livr.
2. Bulletin historique de la Societe des Antiquaires de la
Morinie. 197 livr.
3. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London.
Vol. xviii. No. I.
4. La Gazette Numismatique. No. 7, 1901.
5. Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien.
No. 213.
6. Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de 1'Ouest. 4 me
trim., 1900.
7. Coins of the present Dynasty of China. By Stephen W.
Bushell, Esq., M.D., C.B. From the Author.
8. Bulletin de Numismatique. Jan. Mars, 1901.
9. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica. Fasc. 1, 1901.
10. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
Vol. x.
The President read a letter from the Home Secretary, the
Right Hon. Charles T. Ritchie, conveying His Majesty the
King's thanks for the loyal and dutiful Address of Sympathy of
the Society.
Mr. Wilfred Cripps, C.B., exhibited a unique and unpublished
aureus of Carausius, having on the obverse the laureate and
draped bust of the Emperor and the legend IMP. CARAVSIVS
P.F. AVG-., and on the reverse Pax standing, holding a branch
and a sceptre, and the legend PAX. AVG. VOT. V. This
interesting coin was found a few years ago in Cirencester in
the course of excavating foundations for some villas. The
chief interest of the coin, apart from its rarity, is that it bears
the legend VOT. V. (Votis quinquennalibus), a hitherto unknown
inscription on the coins of this reign, and that it is similar to
another aureus of Carausius in the possession of Sir John
Evans which, however, reads MVLT. X. (Multis decennalibus)
for VOT. V. The type of " Pax " records the Treaty of Peace
between Carausius and Diocletian and Maximian, concluded in
A.D. 290, the probable date of the issue of the coin.
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 15
Major A. B. Creeke exhibited, with notes, two unpublished
stycas in copper of Aelfwald I and Aethelred I, kings of North-
umbria. Hitherto no coin of the latter king had been identified,
and the copper styca of the former marks the change from
silver to copper of those pieces.
Mr. Lionel L. Fletcher exhibited a halfpenny of Charles II
reading CRAOLVS for CAEOLVS.
Mr. G. F. Hill read a paper on a proposed notation to show
the position of the inscriptions on coins in relation to the type,
The direction of the inscription would be indicated by an
arrow with a single barb ; a vertical arrow for an inscription
on the right or left of the type, with the barb on the right or
left of the shaft accordingly ; a horizontal arrow for an inscrip-
tion above or below the type, with the barb above or below
accordingly. All inscriptions should be assumed to read " in-
wardly" unless otherwise indicated; when they read "out-
wardly " the arrow should be marked by two short projections
at the butt-end or the outer side of the shaft. Curved inscrip-
tions to be represented by a curved, straight inscriptions by a
straight shaft.
Mr. Lionel M. Hewlett read a paper on a rare guiennois of
Edward III struck at Bordeaux. It differs from the ordinary
guiennois in having the figure of the King on the obverse
partly turned to the right, and in the cross on the reverse
being similar to that on the leopard, with the limbs formed of
one plain and two beaded lines instead of three plain lines. The
lions or leopards in the angles of the cross are turned from
the centre. As the leopard was struck before the Treaty of
Bretigny and the guiennois after the Treaty, Mr. Hewlett con-
sidered that this coin belonged to the first issue of the latter
piece and, from its rarity, that it may even be a pattern.
16 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
JUNE 20, 1901.
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.
SIB JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., D.C.L., LL.D., Sc.D., F.R.S.,
V.P.S.A., F.G.S., President, in the Chair.
The Minutes of the last Annual General Meeting were read
and confirmed.
The Report of the Council was then read to the Society as
follows :
GENTLEMEN, The Council again have the honour to lay
before you their Annual Report as to the state of the Numis-
matic Society.
With much regret they have to announce the death of the
following five Ordinary Members :
Robert Carfrae, Esq., F. S.A.Scot.
Constantine Alexander lonides, Esq.
James J. Mason, Esq.
R Alexander Neil, Esq.
Major W. Nutter.
And the resignation of the following seven Ordinary Mem-
bers :
Mrs. Bagnall-Oakeley.
William Clinton Baker, Esq.
Herr Carl Theodor Deichmann.
Thomas W. Minton, Esq.
C. Montague Neale, Esq.
Henry Symonds, Esq.
George Wakeford, Esq.
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 17
On the other hand, the Council have much pleasure in
recording the election of the following nine Ordinary
Members :
The Right Hon. John Lubbock, Baron Avebury.
Alfred Charles Cronin, Esq., F.S.A.
Lionel Lawford Fletcher, Esq.
The Rev. Cooper Kennett Henderson, M.A.
Isidore Kozmrnsky, Esq.
Stewart A. McDowall, Esq.
Frank E. Macfadyen, Esq.
Robert Nicholas Roskell, Esq.
Percy Henry Webb, Esq.
According to the Report of the Hon. Secretaries, the numbers
of the Members are as follows :
Ordinary. Honorary. Total.
June, 1900 27S 23 299
Since elected 9 9
285 23 308
Deceased 5 5
Resigned 7 7
June, 1901 ........ 273 23 296
The Council have further to announce that they have
awarded the Medal of the Society to His Excellency Baron
Wladimir von Tiesenhausen of St. Petersburg, in recog-
nition of his long and valuable services to Oriental Numis-
matics, especially in connexion with the coinages of the
Khalifs.
The Hon. Treasurer's Report, which follows, was submitted
to the Meeting and adopted.
Statement of Keceipts and Disbursements of the
Dr. THE NUMISMATIC SOCIETY OF LONDON IN
s. d.
8.
d.
To
Messrs. Virtue & Co., for printing Chronicles
Parti, 1900 . . . . 39 6 6
Part II, ._ . . 58 1 9
Part III, ,, . . . . 46 3 6
Parts I and II, 1901 . , . 98 14 6
04.9
q
>
The Autotype Company, for Plates . . . 38 7 11
20UI
... 5 10
,i 23 10 4
P.fi
1
1
>j
The Royal Asiatic Society, one year's rent due June 24, 1901
vv
30
1 J
i
Mrs. Harper, for Attendance, Tea, Coffee, &c.
11
3
6
Messrs. H. Bowyer & Co., for Bookbinding ....
3
5
7
Messrs. Davy & Sons, for Printing ....
2
8
6
Messrs. Hachette, for " Dictionnaire des Antiquites "
7
6
Messrs. Walker & Boutall, for Drawing and Engraving .
1
10
5>
Messrs. Hodges, Figgis & Co. for three numbers Journal R.S.A.
9
6
C.S.S.A. for Stationery, &c
3
o
Q
Mr. F. Anderson, for Drawing Coins
6
\j
10
O
o
Mr. J. Pinches, for Engraving
o
4
o
J>
Mr. B. Kingsnorth for Engrossing Address of Condolence to
the King of Italy
i
i .)
JJ
Do. for Engrossing Memorial to His Majesty the King .
j.
1
j. _
12
6
>
Mr. A. P. Ready for making nine Electrotype Medallions
18
1
6
Dr. P. Nelson for two Negatives
10
Fire Insurance
n
i i
\j
Secretaries, for Postages .
\j
K
i >j
o
A
n
Treasurer, for Postages, Receipts, and Cheque Book
V
7
\J
13
w
6
Collector (Mr. C. G. Colman), Commission and Postages .
7
5
By Balance in hand
172
11
9
583
7
10
Examined and found correct,
W. C. BOYD
W. C. BOYD ) . _
17th June, 1901. p. CARLYON-BRITTON I Audttors -
Numismatic Society from June, 1900, to June, 1901.
ACCOUNT WITH ALFRED EVELYN COPP, HON. TREASURER. Cr.
By Balance from last Statement .
. 243
s.
18
d.
3
,, Entrance Fees
9
9
,, Compositions
31
10
Subscriptions ......
... 228
18
,, Amount received for Chronicles, viz.
Mr. B. Quaritch ....
. 42 11 3
Dr. B. Laufer ....
,, Foreign Postages
050
1
16
2
3
August Dividend on 700 London and North-
Western Railway 4 % Consolidated Preference
Stock (less 11s. 8d. tax) 13 8 4
February ditto ditto (less 14s. tax) . 13 6
26 14 4
583 7 10
ALFRED E. COPP,
HONOEAEY TBEASTTBER,
20th June, 1901.
20 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
After the Report of the Council had been read and adopted
the President presented the Society's Medal to Dr. Codrington,
to forward to Baron von Tiesenhausen, who was unable to attend
the meeting, and addressed him as follows :
Dr. Codrington, I have much pleasure in handing to you
the Medal of the Society for transmission to His Excellency
Baron Wladimir von Tiesenhausen, of St. Petersburg. It has
been awarded to him by the Council in recognition of his
services to Oriental numismatics, especially in connection with
the coins of the Muhammedan Khalifs. No one, probably,
in this country is better acquainted than you with the extent
and value of those services which have placed him in the first
rank of Oriental numismatists. Already, in 1855, we find him
publishing a memoir on the Coins of the Samanides, while his
Monnaies des Khalifes Orientaux, which appeared in 1873, and
his Recueil de Materiaux relatifs a Vhistoire de la Horde d'Or,
of which the first volume was issued in 1884, are universally
recognised as standard works. Of his numerous other publica-
tions in the same department of our studies it is needless to say
more than that in them he has fully sustained the high reputa-
tion of St. Petersburg as a school of Oriental numismatics. In
transmitting the Medal to him, will you assure him of our most
cordial wishes for his welfare, and for the long continuance of
his labours in the field that he has so successfully cultivated ?
Dr. Codrington having accepted the Medal, replied as
follows :
Mr. President, I accept the Medal on behalf of Baron von
Tiesenhausen with much pleasure, and with the assurance that
the honour of receiving it will be fully appreciated by him, and
that he gives his warm thanks to the Society for its award to
him. Unfortunately, through error as to his present address,
the letter expressing his sentiments, which is doubtless on its
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 21
way, has not reached the Secretaries, but a telegram received
says that he accepts the Medal with many thanks.
I beg also to thank the Council for having again chosen an
Oriental scholar for Medallist this year, one whose work has
been so valuable and helpful to students of Muhammedan
numismatics for many years past, nearly half a century, and to
whom we have looked up as a master of his subject since the
time when most of us were but beginning our studies in
Oriental numismatics.
Since the Meeting the following letter has been received by
Dr. Codrington from Baron von Tiesenhausen.
" St. Petersbourg.
le 2 Juillet, 1901.
"Cher Monsieur, J'ai eu le plaisir de recevoir votre
obligeante lettre et je m'empresse de vous remercier de tout
mon cceur de vos bonnes dispositions pour moi et de la vive
part que vous avez pris & la conference qui a bien voulu me
decerner la medaille de la Societe Numismatique de Londres.
II va sans dire que je suis bien heureux de voir ainsi mes
travaux approuves par des juges si competents et d'etre
couronne d'un prix si honorable.
"Veuillez agr6er, Monsieur, 1'expression de ma considera-
tion la plus distinguee.
" Votre tout deVoue",
" W. DE TIESENHAUSEN."
The President then delivered the following Address :
Since our last anniversary meeting this Society, in common
with the whole of the British Empire, has sustained an im-
mense, unexpected, and irreparable loss in the person of Her
late Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria. It is not for
me here to dilate upon her virtues and abilities in every
22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
capacity of life ; but I may venture to apply to her, in a
slightly modified form, the verses commemorating the deserts
of one of her illustrious predecessors, Queen Elizabeth, which
accompany the Royal Arms in the old church of Berkham-
sted in Hertfordshire :
" This mighty Queen is dead, and lives,
And leaves the world to wonder,
How she, a widowed Queen did rule,
No Kings have gone beyond her."
If, indeed, any king be destined to excel her or to gain a
more deeply-rooted affection in the hearts of his subjects, let
us hope and pray that it may be her illustrious successor,
King Edward the Seventh, whom may God long preserve !
On his accession this Society presented a loyal and dutiful
address to His Majesty, to which we have received a gracious
reply.
It is worthy of notice that to-day, June 20th, is the anni-
versary of the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837, the year
in which the first meeting of this Society was held.
I must, also, on this occasion, pay a passing tribute to the
memory of the late King of Italy, Humbert, whose days were
cut short in July last by the cruel hand of an assassin. The
Society passed a vote of condolence on this sad event with his
son, our distinguished Honorary Member, Victor Emmanuel,
the present King, to which an appreciative answer was gra-
ciously accorded.
So far as we are immediately concerned, the Society is in a
prosperous condition, though its numbers are slightly reduced
from what they were at this time last year. The reduction is
mainly owing to resignations ; and I cannot but think that the
Members who thus resign do not always take into account the
fact that the Chronicle alone returns good value for their sub-
scriptions, even if, as is often unfortunately the case, they are
unable to attend our meetings.
Our finances, as you will have heard from the Treasurer's
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 23
Report, are on the whole in a satisfactory condition, though the
balance in hand is materially reduced.
The Society's Medal, as has also been already stated, has
this year been awarded to Baron von Tiesenhausen of St.
Petersburg, our distinguished Honorary Member, in recognition
of his services to Oriental numismatics, especially in connexion
with the coins of the Muhammedan Khalifs.
Our losses by death have, I am happy to say, been compara-
tively small, being but five in number. Among those, however,
who have passed away there are at least three about whom I
must say a few words.
Mr. Robert Carfrae was elected a Member of this Society in
1973, and though he never favoured us with any written com-
munications, he was well known as an ardent collector, who
combined a great amount of numismatic knowledge with a
most refined artistic taste. The judgment with which his
collections were made was well exhibited in the series of
Greek coins which he dispersed by auction in May, 1894,
and his reputation will be fully maintained by the magnifi-
cent series of " large brass " Roman coins now about to be
brought under the hammer. In Edinburgh he was well
known as a diligent antiquary, having been an active Fellow
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland since 1862, and for
many years one of the Curators of their Museum, to which
he was a most liberal benefactor. Born in 1819, he died in
a ripe old age at his residence, Montrave Villa, Murrayfield,
Edinburgh, on the 18th September, 1900. Personally he was
a fine example of an old-fashioned, genial, and intelligent
Scotsman ; and many Southern as well as Northern friends
deeply deplore his loss.
Mr. Constantine Alexander lonides was another of our
members who was endowed with true artistic instincts, and
who approached numismatics from the aesthetic, rather than the
historical side. His collection of pictures and other works of
art was justly renowned, and will ever remain a source of
24 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
pleasure to many, as he bequeathed it to the Victoria and Albert
Museum for the benefit of the nation.
It was only yesterday morning (June 19th) that there passeu
away from among us, in the prime of life, and after a very short
illness, Mr. Robert Alexander Neil, tutor of Pembroke College,
Cambridge. He was the second son of the late Rev. Robert
Neil of Glencairn, Aberdeenshire, where he was born in
December, 1852, and was therefore only in his forty-ninth
year. After passing through the Grammar School at Aberdeen,
he proceeded to Aberdeen University, where he took the Simp-
son Greek Prize in 1870, and the Fullerton Scholarship in
1871. In the following year he obtained a scholarship at
Peterhouse, Cambridge, where he won the Craven Scholarship
in 1875, and attained the high distinction of being second
Classic in the following year. Shortly afterwards he was
elected to a Fellowship at Pembroke College, where for many
years he has contributed in no small degree to the welfare and
reputation of the College. His accurate scholarship, the wide
extent of his studies, which embraced not only the classic
languages of Greece and Rome, but Sanskrit, in which he
became the University Lecturer, gave him an almost unique
position at Cambridge, and I, for one, can testify to the kind and
liberal manner in which he placed his stores of knowledge at the
disposal of others, and in some degree to the extent of those
stores. Although not a professed numismatist, he knew more
about coins than many who are brought in immediate contact
with them, and made good use of them in illustration of his
lectures. In him I have lost a highly valued personal friend, and
this country one of its most accomplished scholars.
The papers brought before us during the past year have been
numerous and varied in character. In Greek numismatics, Mr.
Warwick Wroth has continued his long series of notes on the
acquisitions made by the British Museum, in a Paper giving an
account of the principal Greek coins added to the collection
during the year 1900. Among these may be mentioned a
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 25
tetradrachm of Syracuse by Evaenetos in the same style as
some of his dekadrachms, and having a pellet below the chin of
Persephone ; a fine Carthaginian tetradrachm of Sicily, pre-
sented by Miss Radford ; a tetrobol of Capsa in Macedonia ;
two scarce copper coins of Apollonia Pontica in Thrace ; and
some rare silver coins of the Oetaei, Aegina, Calchedon, the
Satrap Spithridates, and Berenice II of Egypt. A tetradrachm
of Antiochus VI of Syria bears a singularly beautiful portrait.
Altogether the nation, as well as the Museum, may be well
congratulated on its acquisitions.
Mr. Warwick Wroth has also been engaged in the study of
Parthian coinage, and has made two communications to the
Society upon the subject. In the former of these he has dis-
cussed the coins bearing the name of Otanes and of Phraates,
and shown reason why he dissents from some of the attributions
of Professor Percy Gardner. In the latter, he boldly brings
forward a scheme for the re-arrangement of the whole Parthian
coinage. Some twenty-three years have elapsed since Professor
Gardner took the Arsacidan series in hand, and during that
interval of time, many new coins have been discovered and
a certain number of fresh numismatic facts have been brought
to light. Looking, moreover, at the fact that about seventeen
successive monarchs bore the name of Arsaces before any
definite system of dates was adopted, it will be admitted that
any classification of the coins must, to some extent, be regarded
as provisional, but that that which rests on the widest founda-
tion of facts is likely to be the most trustworthy.
M. Eostowzew has favoured us with an interesting paper on
the remarkable coins of Tarsus which commemorate the gift to
the city of cargoes of corn, derived, at all events, in one
instance, from the granaries of Egypt. The gifts were made by
Caracalla and Severus Alexander, and are commemorated as
Swpea, cxapea <reirov, or simply as treirof, the spelling of which
word is worthy of notice, inasmuch as it shows what we
regard as a superfluous epsilon. The paper concludes with
d
26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
some illustrations of the tesserae in use on the occasion of these
" Liberalitates " in order to facilitate the distribution of the
corn or money. One of these in lead with the word TAPCOC
on the one face and a galley on the other is preserved in the
British Museum.
Mr. Oman has supplied a list of no less than twenty -five coins
of Smyrna, mostly in brass, which are preserved in the Bodleian
collection at Oxford, but which are wanting in the British
Museum. Nine are of Imperial times, and include examples of
the Smyrna coinage of Crispina and Saloninus. The history of
the series is interesting, as they were collected by Mr. Daniel
Patridge, a Smyrna merchant, and were made over to the
Bodleian Library by Mr. William Raye, Consul at Smyrna, in
the year 1704, nearly fifty years before the foundation of the
British Museum.
The bibliographical notes on Greek numismatics, communi-
cated to the Chronicle by Mr. Hill, contain a vast amount of
varied and valuable information, derived in many instances
from somewhat unexpected sources. One is led to regret that,
in past years, a similar record of numismatic information had
not been undertaken.
The same author's paper, on a method of notation to
designate at a glance the position and direction of the legend
and type of a coin, will no doubt receive careful consideration.
The plan is ingenious and as simple as the circumstances admit ;
but a practical application of it will be necessary before an
opinion can be formed as to the advisability of its universal
adoption.
In the domain of Roman numismatics we have had several
communications. I have myself called attention to the manner
in which the coins of Hadrian, representing the burning of the
claria or bonds for the public debt, are illustrated by a bas-
relief of marble now in the Forum at Rome. Another relief, in
the same place, illustrates the corns of Trajan with ALIM.
ITAL.
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 27
Coming down to somewhat later days M. Jules Maurice has
favoured us with two valuable monographs on the issues from
certain Roman mints during the Constantino Period. The first
relates to the mint of London, and recites seven main coinages
between July, A.D. 806 and September, A.D. 326, when the
mint was closed. Several of these coinages are divided by the
author into two or more series, and the first series of the first
coinage comprises coins in memory of Constantius as well as
some bearing the name of Severus as Emperor and Maximinus
and Constantine as Caesars. In the second series of this issue
we find Maximianus and Constantine as Emperors. In the
following issues Maximinus Daza and Licinius I appear, and
subsequently Crispus, Constantine II, and Licinius II, and, last
of all, Fausta and Helena. There do not seem to have been
any gold coins struck at the London mint during the Constan-
tine Period, and M. Maurice's essay does not embrace the
reigns of Carausius and Allectus.
M. Maurice's second paper relates to the issues from the
important mint of Siscia, also during the Constantine Period.
He begins in A.D. 805 with coins of Severus, Maximinus, and
Constantinus as Caesars, and of Maximianus, Diocletianus, and
Constantius I, as Augusti. In the second emission, from
A.D. 308 to 311, coins of Licinius and Galeria Valeria come in,
and a succession of nine more coinages brings us down to the
year 337, and these comprise coins of Constantine the Great
and his family, including Delmatius and Hanniballianus. The
artistic skill of the die-engravers at Siscia, especially in the
case of the gold coins, compares favourably with that ex-
hibited at any of the other contemporary mints of the Roman
Empire.
In connection with the coins of the Ancient Britons we have
had a short, but very interesting note by Mr. Grueber on an
unpublished silver coin of Verica. This coin is in fine con-
dition, but weighs less than three and a half grains troy. It
therefore belongs to the same category as the minute silver
28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
coins of Verica and Tincommius, found many years ago on
Lancing Downs, Sussex, and now in my own cabinet, which
testify to a considerable degree of civilisation in the part of
the country where such a currency existed. The type of the
reverse, a torque enclosing C. F., recalls that of many of the
Celtic Eegm-bogen schiisseklien of Germany and Switzerland.
The resemblance of the portrait on the obverse to that of
Tiberius is undeniable, but can, I think, hardly be accepted as
absolutely conclusive in dating the coin. The laureate head
of Augustus, on some of his coins, closely resembles that of
Tiberius, and the prototype of the extremely minute head on
this coin of Verica may have been one of Augustus with this
fortuitous resemblance.
With regard to the Anglo-Saxon coinage we have received
several communications.
Major Creeke has brought under our notice two unpublished
copper stycas of Northumbria, the one of Aelfwald I and the
other of Aethelred I, of whom no coins were previously known.
Mr. W. C. Boyd has given us a note on some fourteen
unpublished varieties in his collection, ranging from a styca of
Eanred to a penny of Harold II.
Mr. Carlyon-Britton has also read a paper on some coins
struck in the mints of Bedwin and Marlborough, in Wilts,
during the reigns of Edward the Confessor and William the
Conqueror. The duration of the coinage at both these towns
was limited to a few years, and the same moneyer, Cilda,
struck coins at both.
Lord Grantley's paper on some unique Anglo-Saxon coins,
which I briefly mentioned in my last Anniversary Address,
has now been printed in full in the Chronicle. Besides the
coin of Heahberht he describes a remarkable penny which,
apparently, combines the names of Berhtwulf of Mercia and
Aethelwulf of Wessex ; and another of Ecgbeohrt of Wessex,
with the title of King of the Mercians, as well as two other
extremely rare coins.
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 29
In English numismatics we have had the first part of what
may be regarded as the most important paper that has ap-
peared upon any branch of the subject for many years the
numismatic history of the reign of Henry I, by Mr. W. J.
Andrew. I explained last year the reason why the Chronicles
for 1900 and 1901 should be issued without any direct regard
for their dates, and I also reserved any comments upon the
paper until the whole of it should have been issued. All the
Members of the Society will have received Parts I and II of the
Chronicle for 1901, and will thus have been able to judge of the
comprehensive and exhaustive manner in which Mr. Andrew
has treated his subject, but until the paper is complete, it will
be well for me still to abstain from making any farther com-
ments upon it.
Mr. Carlyon-Britton has, I am afraid, somewhat encroached
on Mr. Andrew's field of research in his paper " On the Coins
of William I and II and the Sequence of the Types," but both
authors recognise the bearing of the law of monetagium upon
the coinage. This law, however, was abolished by Henry I,
and Mr. Carlyon-Britton has shown how, by invoking its aid
and taking into account the " mule " coins with the head of
one issue and the reverse of another, much light may be thrown
on the sequence of the types of the two Williams.
The early English gold coinage has this year received a con-
siderable amount of attention. I have attempted to bring
together all that as yet is known with regard to the gold
pennies of Henry III and the florin and its parts of Edward III,
with what success I must leave others to judge. It is, at all
events, something gained to have all the known varieties of
both the coinages brought together on one autotype plate.
Mr. L. A. Lawrence has described from his own collection a
second specimen of the half-noble of the third coinage of
Edward III, like that which belonged to the late Mr. Mon-
tagu, and was figured by him in the Chronicle for 1888. It
is now in the British Museum. The coins differ in some
30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
minor particulars, but agree in the characteristic X, the
saltires between the words, and the large ff in the centre of
the reverse, all of which are features of the noble of Edward's
third year. Mr. Lawrence's coin, though worn, still weighs
60J grains.
Mr. Lawrence has also communicated a paper on .a small
hoard of groats of Henry VI to Henry VII, which comprises
coins of Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III. He has
utilised it for the purpose of still farther corroborating the
sequence of stops and mint-marks of Edward IV and Henry
VII, as arranged by himself and the Rev. G. F. Crowther. It
would be an instructive piece of work, if some one would
undertake the detailed comparison between these marks upon
the groats and those on the gold angels and larger coins of
Henry VII.
Mr. F. A. Walters, in his paper on the last silver coinage
of Edward IH, shows reason for believing that the resumption
of the title of King of France on the coins did not immediately
follow the violation of the Treaty of Bretigny.
I am glad that the Anglo-Gallic series is again receiving
attention, as it is so intimately connected with the more
purely English coinage. Mr. Hewlett, in his paper on a rare
Guiennois of Edward III, has shown the bearing which the
Treaty of Bretigny, just mentioned, had on the types of the
coins struck in France by the English king, as well as on the
titles on his coins struck in England.
An Anglo-Gallic paper in another sense, being the joint
production of the English Mr. Grueber and the French M.
Blanchet, related to the law of treasure-trove, ancient and
modern. My opinion on the subject of this law and its ad-
ministration in this country is, I think, sufficiently well known.
Its history, however, and the forms that it has assumed in
different countries of Europe, are an interesting subject for
study.
As to historical medals, perhaps the two most popular events
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 31
in this country during the eighteenth century were Admiral
Vernon's capture of Porto Bello, " with six ship's only," and
the victories over the French and their allies obtained by
Frederick the Great of Prussia.
To the numerous medals that are known commemorative of
these two events, Mr. W. Talbot Ready has been able to add an
unpublished variety in each case.
In Oriental numismatics I have little to record, but Mr.
Samuel Smith has contributed to us an account of the Soudanese
coinage struck by the Mahdi and the late Khalifa, Abdullah.
The degeneration of the silver coinage was rapid and complete,
and in a few years the work of Henry VIII and his successor,
three centuries and a half ago, was far outdone, and silver was
represented by mere pieces of copper slightly washed over with
some white metal.
The coinage of the South African Republic formed the
subject of a memoir communicated to the Society in 1894,
which at that time it was not thought expedient to publish. It
has at last appeared in the pages of our Chronicle, and is of
considerable interest now that the Republic has ceased to exist.
The coinage is not without its ludicrous side, the representation
by a German die-sinker of the waggon in what the burghers
were pleased to call their national arms, with a pair of shafts
instead of a pole, thus reducing its dignity to that of " a one-
horse concern," having jeopardised the re-election of President
Kruger. Had he failed in his election, who can tell what
would have been the present condition of affairs in South
Africa ?
In concluding my observations on our publications, I may
mention that the Numismatic Chronicle for the year 1900, being
the last volume of the third series and the fortieth on which
my name has appeared as that of one of the editors, is now
complete, and will shortly be in the hands of members. It
contains a double index to the ten concluding volumes of the
third series of the Chronicle, for the compilation of which we
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
indeed to o
=r
r.~^.," -*-' ~"
his family,^ an ingenious essay by M. B. Mowat on the recon-
stita tion of the collection of die, of the 1st and nd centur.es,
in which he suggests that the restored - corns of T, us, Dom,
tian, Nerva, Trajan, &,, were struck from dies that we
engraved in order to complete the collect.cn of dies that ,
kept by the State.
It is proposed to hold another international Congress
historical studies at Rome in the course of next spring, n
which Numismatics will occupy one of the foremost places.
The numismatic publications of the past year have not b
numerous, but among them is a new volume of the Britu
Museum Catalogue of Greek coins from the pen of our Foreig
Secretary, Mr. G. F. Hill. It relates to the coins of Lycaonia,
Isauria and Cilicia, and is illustrated by a map and forty Plates,
and among these is one which, following the example of the
Catalogues of the coins of Alexandria, Caria and Lycia, presents
what is to my mind a very valuable feature, inasmuch as it tends
to complete the Catalogue and to render it more valuable as a
work of reference. The Plate in question is No. XL, and in
it are represented fourteen coins struck in the region com-
prised in the Catalogue, but of which at present there are no
specimens in the Museum collection.
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
Although the coins of Cilicia such as those of Celenderis and
Mallus date back to the sixth and fifth century B.C., and are
purely Greek in general character, yet the bulk of the coins
treated of in this volume and especially those of Lycaonia and
Isauria belong to Roman Imperial times. The coins of Derbe,
Lystra, and Iconium are of some interest to the biblical student,
but the earliest, those of Iconium, do not go back beyond the
first century B.C. Those of Lystra commence under Augustus,
and those of Derbe under Faustina the younger. They throw
no light on what may have been " the speech of Lycaonia "
nor on the nice question of who were the divinities of the
district known as Jupiter and Mercurius.
Another publication that ought to be mentioned is a magnifi-
cent folio volume issued by the Royal Museums at Berlin, 1
" The Medals of the House of Hohenzollern." It is illustrated
by ninety plates, some of them, where enamelled work has to
be reproduced, in colours. There are also numerous blocks
introduced in the text. A publication such as this, limited to
the memorials of a single family, testifies to the wonderful
vitality of the race of Hohenzollerns, its wide-spread ramifica-
tions and its influence on the history of Europe, if not on the
destinies of the human race.
In conclusion I must again point out that the beneficent results
arising from our Society are not in any way limited to our
publications. Our well-attended meetings prove that members
feel the advantage of being periodically brought together for
the purpose of discussing objects of common interest, and the
rare coins and medals that are exhibited at our meetings are a
source of pleasure to those who have the opportunity of
examining them, as well as to the proud possessors who exhibit
them. I have now for many years been intimately connected
with this Society, and I do not remember it in a more active
and useful condition than it is at present. I can only hope
1 Die Schaumunzen des Hauses Sohenzollern. Berlin, 1901.
e
34 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
that for many years to come it may continue to advance, and
that however long it may exist, its standing and usefulness may
never recede.
A vote of thanks to the President for his Address was moved
by Mr. Barclay V. Head, seconded by Mr. R. G-. Hoblyn, and
carried unanimously.
The President then announced to the meeting the result of
the ballot for the Council and the Officers for the ensuing year,
which was as follows :
President.
SIB JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., D.C.L., LLJX, Sc.D.,
F.R.S., V.P.S.A., F.G.S.
Vice-Presidents .
BAECLAY VINCENT HEAD, ESQ., D.C.L., Pn.D.
SIB HENBY H. HOWOBTH, K.C.I.E., F.R.S., F.S.A.
Hon. Treasurer.
ALFBED E. COPP, ESQ.
Hon. Secretaries.
HEBBEBT A. GBUEBEB, ESQ., F.S.A.
EDWABD J. RAPSON, ESQ., M.A., M.R.A.S.
Foreign Secretary.
GEOBGE FBANCIS HILL, ESQ., M.A.
Hon. Librarian.
OLIVEB CODBINGTON, ESQ., M.D., F.S.A.
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY. 35
Members of the Council.
W. J. ANDREW, ESQ.
THOMAS BLISS, ESQ.
W. C. BOYD, ESQ.
P. W. P. CARLYON-BRITTON, ESQ., D.L , J.P., F.S.A.
WILLIAM J. HOCKING, ESQ.
L. A. LAWRENCE, ESQ.
A. H. LYELL, ESQ., F.S.A.
SAMUEL SMITH, JUN., ESQ.
FREDERICK A. WALTERS, ESQ., F.S.A.
SIR HERMANN WEBER, M.D.
LIST OF MEMBERS
OF THE
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
OF LONDON.
DECEMBEK, 1901.
LIST OF MEMBERS
OF THE
NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
OF LONDON,
DECEMBEE, 1901.
An Asterisk prefixed to a name indicates that the Member has compounded
for his annual contribution.
ELECTED
1873 *ALEXIE:FF, M. GEORGES D', Maitre de la Cour de S.M.
1'Empereur de Eussie, 40, Sergnewskaje, St. Petersburg.
1892 AMEDROZ, HENRYF.,EsQ.,7, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
1882 ANDREW, W. J., ESQ., F.S.A., Cadster House, near Whaley
Bridge, Derbyshire.
1884 ANDREWS, E. THORNTON, ESQ., 25, Castle Street, Hertford.
1888 ARNOLD, G. M., ESQ., D.L., F.S.A., Milton Hall, Gravesend,
Kent.
1900 AVEBURY, Ex. HON. LORD, P.O., F.E.S., High Elms, Down,
Kent.
1882 BACKHOUSE, SIR JONATHAN E., BART., The Eookery, Mid-
dleton Tyas, E.S.O., Yorks.
1892 BAKER, F. BRAYNE, ESQ., The College, Malvern.
1898 BANES, ARTHUR ALEXANDER, ESQ., The Eed House, Upton,
Essex.
1887 BASCOM, G. J., ESQ., 109, Lexington Avenue, New York,
U.S.A.
1896 BEARMAN, THOS., ESQ., Melbourne House, 8, Tudor Eoad,
Hackney.
1898 *BENSON, FRANK SHERMAN, ESQ., 214, Columbia Heights,
Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S.A.
1880 *BIEBER, G. W. EGMONT, ESQ., 4, Fenchurch Avenue, E.G.
1883 BIGGE, FRANCIS E., ESQ., Hennapyn, Torquay.
4 LIST OF MEMBERS.
ELECTED
1882 BIRD, W. S., ESQ., 74, New Oxford Street, W.C.
1885 BLACKETT, JOHN STEPHENS, ESQ., C.E., Inverard, Aberfoyle,
N.B.
1882 BLACKMORE, H. P., ESQ., M.D., Blackmore Museum, Salis-
bury.
1896 BLEASBY, GEO. BERNARD, ESQ., The Prairie, Lahore, India.
1882 *BLiss, THOMAS, ESQ., Coningsburgh, Montpelier Eoad,
Baling, W.
1879 BLUNDELL, J. H., ESQ., 157, Cheapside, E.G.
1896 BOULTON, S. B., ESQ., J.P., D.L., F.E.S., Copped Hall,
Totteridge, Herts.
1897 BOWCHER, FRANK, ESQ., 35, Fairfax Eoad, Bedford Park, W.
1899 BOWLES, HAROLD BOLLES, ESQ., Oakside, 35, Oakfield Eoad,
Clifton, Bristol.
1892 BOYD, WILLIAM C., ESQ., 7, Friday Street, E.G.
1899 BOYLE, COLONEL GERALD, 48, Queen's Gate Terrace, S.W.
1877 BROWN, G. D., ESQ., 77, Mexfield Eoad, East Putney, S.W.
1885 BROWN, JOSEPH, ESQ., C.B.,K.C., 54, Avenue Eoad, Eegeut's
Park, N.W.
1896 BRUUN, HERR L. E., 101, Gothersgade, Copenhagen.
1878 BUCHAN, J. S., ESQ., 17, Barrack Street, Dundee.
1889 BUCKLEY, LADY, Bathafarn Hall, Euthin, Denbighshire.
1884 BUICK, DAVID, ESQ., LL.D., Sandy Bay, Larne Harbour,
Ireland.
1881 BULL, EEV. HERBERT A., Wellington House, Westgate-on-
Sea.
1897 BURN, EICHARD, ESQ., Allahabad, India.
1881 BURSTAL, EDWARD K, ESQ., M.Inst.C.E., 38, Parliament
Street, Westminster.
1858 BUSH, COLONEL J. TOBIN, 41, Rue de POrangerie, le Havre,
France.
1900 BUSHELL, STEPHEN W., ESQ., M.D., C.M.G., Shirley, Harold
Eoad, Upper Norwood, S.E.
1878 *BUTTERY, W., ESQ. (address not known).
1886 CALDEOOTT, J. B., ESQ., Wallfields, Hertford.
1894 CARLYON-BRITTON, CAPT. P. W. P., D.L., J.P., F.S.A., 14,
Oakwood Court, Kensington, W.
LIST Of MEMBERS. O
ELECTED
1898 CARNEGIE, MAJOR D. LINDSAY, 6, Playfair Terrace, St.
Andrews, N.B.
1899 CAVE, CHARLES J. P., ESQ., Binsted, Cambridge.
1886 CHURCHILL, Wm. S., ESQ., 102, Birch Lane, Manchester.
1884 *CLARK, JOSEPH, ESQ., 5, Grosvenor Gardens, Muswell Hill,
N.W.
1890 CLARKE, CAPT. J. E. PLOMER, Welton Place, near Daventry,
Northamptonshire.
1891 *CLAUSON, ALBERT CHARLES, ESQ., 12, Park Place Villas,
Maida Hill West, W.
1890 CLERK, MAJOR-GEN. M. G., Bengal Army, c/o Messrs. H. S.
King & Co., 45, PaU Mall, S.W.
1886 CODRINGTON, OLIVER, ESQ., M.D., F.S.A., M.E.A.S., 12,
Victoria Road, Clapham Common, Librarian.
1895 COOPER, JOHN, ESQ., Beckfoot, Longsight, Manchester.
1877 *Copp, ALFRED E., ESQ., Dampiet Lodge, 103, "Worple Eoad,
West Wimbledon, and 36, Essex Street, Strand, W.C.,
Hon. Treasurer.
1874 CREEKE, MAJOR ANTHONY BUCK, Westwood, Burnley.
1886 *CROMPTON-ROBERTS, CHAS. M., ESQ., 16, Belgrave Square,
s.w.
1900 CRONIN, ALFRED C., ESQ., F.S.A., 25, Kensington Palace
Mansions, De Vere Gardens, W.
1882 CROWTHER, EEV. G. F., M.A., 2, Sidney Villas, Lower Eoad,
Sutton, Surrey.
1899 CULL, EEUBEN, ESQ., Tarradale, Glebe Avenue, Enfield,
Middlesex.
1875 CTJMING, H. SYER, ESQ., F.S.A.Scot., 63, Kenningtou Park Road,
S.E.
1884 DAMES, M. LONGWORTH, ESQ., M.B.A.S., Alegria, Enfield,
Middlesex.
1900 DATTARI, SIGNOK GIOVANNI, Cairo, Egypt.
1891 DAUGLISH, A. W., ESQ., 33, Colville Square, W.
1878 DAVIDSON, J. L. STRACHAN, ESQ., M.A., Balliol College,
Oxford.
1884 DAVIS, WALTER, ESQ., 23, Suffolk Street, Birmingham.
1898 DAVIS, WILLIAM JOHN, ESQ., The Lindens, Trafalgar Road.
Moseley, Birmingham.
6 LIST OF MEMBERS.
1888 DAWSON, G. J. CROSBIE, ESQ., M.InsiC.E., F.G.S., F.S.S.,
May Place, Newcastle, Staffordshire.
1897 DAY, ROBERT, ESQ., F.S.A., M.E.I.A., Myrtle Hill House,
Cork.
1886 *DEWICK, REV. E. S., M.A., F.S.A., 26, Oxford Square, Hyde
Park, W.
1888 DICKINSON, REV. F. BINLEY, M.A., Manor House, Ottery St.
Mary.
1889 DIMSDALE, JOHN, ESQ., 19, Phillimore Gardens, Ken-
sington, W.
1868 DOUGLAS, CAPTAIN R. J. H., Junior United Service Club,
Charles Street, St. James's, S.W.
1893 DTJDMAN, JOHN, ESQ., JUN., RosslynHill, Hampstead, N.W.
1893 ELLIOTT, E. A., ESQ., 41, Holland Park, W.
1893 ELLIS, LIEUT.-COL. H. LESLIE, F.S.A., F.R.G.S., Maghery-
more, Wicklow.
1895 ELY, TALFOURD, ESQ., M.A., F.S.A., 13, Well Road, Hamp-
stead, N.W.
1888 ENGEL, M. ARTHUR, 66, Rue de 1'Assomption, Paris.
1879 ERHARDT, H., ESQ., 9, Bond Court, Walbrook, E.G.
1872 EVANS, ARTHUR J., ESQ., M.A., F.R.S., V.P.S.A., Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford.
1849 EVANS, SIR JOHN, K.C.B., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., F.S.A.,
Corr. de 1'Inst., Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead, President.
1892 *EVANS, LADY, Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead.
1861 EVANS, SEBASTIAN, ESQ., LL.D., 15, Waterloo Crescent, Dover.
1886 FAY, DUDLEY B., ESQ., 53, State Street, Boston, Mass.,
U.S.A.
1901 FLETCHER, LIONEL LAWTORD, ESQ., Norwood Lodge, Tup-
wood, Caterham.
1898 FORRER, L., ESQ., Edelweiss, Chislehurst, Kent.
1894 *FOSTER, JOHN ARMSTRONG, ESQ., F.Z.S., Chestwood, near
Barnstaple.
1891 Fox, H. B. EARLE, ESQ., 42, Rue Jouffroy, Paris.
1868 FRENTZEL, RUDOLPH, ESQ., 96, Upper Osbaldeston Road, Stoke
Newington, N.
1882 *FRESHFIELD, EDWIN, ESQ., LL.D., F.S.A., New Bank
Buildings, 31, Old Jewry, E.G.
LIST OF MEMBERS.
ELECTED
1896 *FRY, CLAUDE BASIL, ESQ., Howcroft, Stoke Bishop,
Bristol.
1897 GANS, LEOPOLD, ESQ., 207, Madison Street, Chicago, U.S.A.
1871 GARDNER, PROF. PERCY, Litt.D., F.S.A., 12, Canterbury Eoad,
Oxford.
1889 GARSIDE, HENRY, ESQ., Burnley Eoad, Accrington.
1894 GOODACRE, H., ESQ., 78, Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park, W.
1885 GOSSET, MAJOR-GEN. MATTHEW W. E., C.B., Westgate
House, Dedham, Essex.
1899 GOWLAND, WILLIAM, ESQ., F.I.C., M.C.S., F.S.A., 13,
Russell Road, Kensington, W.
1891 *GRANTLEY, LORD, F.S.A., 2, Buckingham Palace Gardens,
S.W.
1865 GREENWELL, REV. CANON W., M.A., F.R.S., F.S.A., Durham.
1894 GRISSELL, HARTWELL D., ESQ., M.A., F.S.A., 60, High
Street, Oxford.
1871 GRTJEBEE, HERBERT A., ESQ., F.S.A., Assistant-Keeper of
Coins, British Museum, Hon. Secretary.
1899 HALL, HENRY PLATT, ESQ., Toravon, Werneth, Oldham.
1898 HANDS, REV. ALFRED W., 21, Lansdowne Crescent, Chelten-
ham.
1864 HEAD, BARCLAY VINCENT, ESQ., D.C.L., Ph.D., Keeper of
Coins, British Museum, Vice-President.
1886 *HENDERSON, JAMES STEWART, ESQ., F.R.G.S., M.R.S.L.,
M.C.P., 7, Hampstead Hill Gardens, N.W.
1901 * HENDERSON, REV. COOPER- K., M.A., Members' Mansions,
Victoria Street, S.W.
1892 HEWITT, RICHARD, ESQ., 28, Westbourne Gardens, W.
1900 HEWLETT, LIONEL M., ESQ., Parkside, Harrow- on-the-Hill,
Middlesex.
1880 HEYWOOD, NATHAN, ESQ., 3, Mount Street, Manchester.
1893 HILBERS, THE VEN. G. C., St. Thomas's Rectory, Haverford-
west.
1898 HILL, CHARLES WILSON, ESQ., Bendower, Kenilworth.
1893 HILL, GEORGE FRANCIS, ESQ., M.A., British Museum,
Foreign Secretary.
1873 HOBLYN, RICHARD A., ESQ., F.S.A., 30, Abbey Road, St.
John's Wood, N.W.
LIST OF MEMBERS.
, WILLIAM JOHN, ESQ., 1, B,oyal Mint, E.
1895 HODGE, EDWARD G., ESQ., F.S.A., 13, WeUington Street,
Strand, W.O.
1895 HODGE, THOMAS, ESQ., 13, WeUington Street, Strand, W.C.
1889 HODGES, GEOEGE, ESQ., Thornbury, Gloucestershire.
1877 HODGKIN.T., ESQ., D.C.L., F.S.A., Benwelldene, Newcastle.
1878 HOWORTH, SIR HENRY H., K.C.I.E., F.E.S., F.S.A.,
30, Collingham Place, Earl's Court, S.W., Vice-
President.
1883 HUBBARD, WALTER E., ESQ., 9, Broomhill Avenue, Partick,
Glasgow.
1885 HUGEL, BARON F. VON, 4, Holford Eoad, Hampstead, N.W.
1897 HUTH, BEGINALD, ESQ., 32, Phillimore Gardens, Ken-
sington, W.
1892 INDERWICK, F. A., ESQ., K.C., F.S.A., 8, Warwick Square,
S.W.
1872 JAMES, J. HENRY, ESQ., Kiugawood, Watford.
1879 *JEX-BLAKE, THE VERY EEV. T. W., D.D., F.S.A., Deanery,
Wells.
1880 JOHNSTON, J. M. C., ESQ., The Yews, Grove Park, Camber-
well, S.E.
1898 JONAS, MAURICE, ESQ., 9, "Drapers' Gardens, E.G.
1843 JONES, JAMES COVE, ESQ., F.S.A., Loxley, Wellesbourne, War-
wick.
1873 KAY, HENRY CASSELS, ESQ., 11, Durham Villas, Kensington, W.
1873 KEARY, CHARLES FRANCIS, ESQ., M.A., F.S.A., Savile Club,
Piccadilly, W.
1874 *KENYON, R. LLOYD, ESQ., M.A., Pradoe, WestFelton, Salop.
1884 KING, L. WHITE, ESQ., C.S.I., F.S.A., Deputy Commissioner,
c/o Messrs. King & Co., Bombay, India.
1891 KIRKALDY, JAMES, ESQ., 68, East India Eoad, E.
1876 KITCHENER, MAJOR GENERAL LORD, OF KHARTOUM, G.C.B.,
K.C.M.G., c/o Messrs. Cox & Co., Charing Cross, S.W.
1884 *KiTT, THOS.W.,EsQ.,Snowdon,WoodbridgeEoad,Guildford.
1901 KOZMINSKY, ISIDORE, ESQ., Langport Villa, 43, Eobe Street,
St. Kilda, Victoria, Australia.
1879 KRUMBHOLZ, E. C., ESQ., Alcester House, Wallington, Surrey.
LIST OF MEMBERS. 9
ELECTED
1883 *LAGEKBERG, M. ADAM MAGNUS EMANUEL, Chamberlain of
H.M. the King of Sweden and Norway, Director of the
Numismatic Department, Museum, Gottenburg, and
Hilda, Sweden.
1901 LAMBERT, HORACE, Esq., Norgrave Buildings, 59A, Bishops-
gate Street Within, E.G.
1864 *LAMBERT, GEORGE, ESQ., F.S.A., 10, Coventry Street, W.
1888 *LAMBROS, M. J. P., Athens, Greece.
1871 *LANG, SIR ROBERT HAMILTON, The Grove, Dedham, Essex.
1900 LANGTON, H. NEVILLE S., ESQ., 62, Harley Street, W.
1898 LAYER, PHILIP G., ESQ., M.E.C.S., Head Street, Colchester.
1899 LAWES, SIR CHARLES BENNET, BART., The Studio, Chelsea
Gardens, S.W.
1877 LAWRENCE, F. G., ESQ., Birchfield, Mulgrave Eoad, Sutton,
Surrey.
1897 LAWRENCE, H. W., ESQ., 37, Belsize Avenue, N.W.
1885 *LAWRENCE, L. A., ESQ., 51, Belsize Park, N.W.
1883 *LAWRENCE, EICHARD HOE, ESQ., 15, Wall Street, New York.
1871 *LAVVSON, ALFRED J., ESQ., Smyrna.
1898 LEVIEN, J. MEWBURN, ESQ., 56, York Street, Portman
Square, W.
1892 LEWIS, PROF. BtiNNELL,M.A.,F.S.A., Queen's College, Cork.
1862 LINCOLN, FREDERICK W., ESQ., 69, New Oxford Street, W.C.
1900 LINCOLN, FREDERICK W., ESQ., JTIN., 69, New Oxford Street,
W.C.
1887 Low, LYMAN H., ESQ., 36, West 129th Street, New York,
U.S.A.
1893 LUND, H. M., ESQ., Makotuku, New Zealand.
1885 *LYELL, A. H., ESQ., F.S.A., 9, Cranley Gardens, S.W.
1895 MACDONALD, GEO., ESQ., M.A., The University, Glasgow.
1901 MACFADYEN, FRANK E., ESQ., 50, Larkspur Terrace, Jes-
mond, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
1887 MACKERELL, 0. E., ESQ., Dunningley, Balham Hill, S.W.
1895 MARSH, WM. E., ESQ., Marston, Bromley, Kent.
1897 MARTIN, A. TRICE, ESQ., M.A., F.S.A., Eedborough House,
Perceval Eoad, Clifton, Bristol.
1896 MASSEY, COL. W. J., 96, Oakley Street, Chelsea, S.W.
10 LIST OF MEMBERS.
mono
1880 *MAUDE, EEV. S., The Vicarage, Hockley, Essex.
1901 McDowALL, STEWART A., ESQ., 166, Holland Eoad, Kensing-
ton, W.
]>;* MrLACHLAN, R. W., ESQ., 55, St. Monique Street, Montreal,
Canada.
1897 MILNE, J. GRAFTON, ESQ., M.A., Holly House, Plaistow, E.
1887 MITCHELL, E. 0., ESQ., c/o Messrs. H. S. King & Co., 65,
Cornhill.
1898 MONCKTON, HORACE W., ESQ., F.L.S., F.G.S., 3, Harcourt
Buildings, Temple, E.G.
1888 MONTAGUE, L. A. D., ESQ., Penton, near Crediton, Devon.
1879 MORRIESON, MAJOR H. WALTERS, E.A., E.A. Barracks,
Pembroke Dock, S. Wales.
1885 MURDOCH, JOHN GLOAG, ESQ., Huntingtower, The Terrace,
Camden Square, N.W.
1894 MURPHY, WALTER ELLIOT, ESQ., 93, St. George's Eoad,
Pimlico, S.W.
1900 *MYLNE, EEV. EGBERT SCOTT, M.A., B.C.L., F.S.A., Great
Amwell, Herts.
1893 NAPIER, PROF. A. S., M.A., Ph.D., Hedington Hill, Oxford.
1864 NECK, J. F., ESQ., c/o Mr. F. W. Lincoln, 69, New Oxford
Street, W.C.
1898 NELSON, PHILIP, ESQ., M.B., Ch.B., 73, Eodney Street,
Liverpool.
1880 NELSON, BALPH, ESQ., 55, North Bondgate, Bishop Auck-
land.
1891 NERVEGNA, M. G., Brindisi. Italy.
1898 OGDEN, W. SHARP, ESQ., HiU View, Danes Eoad, Eus-
holrne, Manchester.
1897 *O'HAGAN, HENRY OSBORNE, ESQ., A14, The Albany,
Piccadilly, W.
1882 OMAN, C. W. C., ESQ., M.A., F.S.A., All Souls College,
Oxford.
1890 PAGE, SAMUEL, ESQ., Hanway House, Nottingham.
1890 PATOW, W. E., ESQ., Calymna, Turkey in Asia.
LIST OF MEMBERS. 11
ELECTED
1882 *PECKOVER, ALEXANDER, ESQ., LL.D., F.S.A., F.L.S.,
F.E.G.S., Lord Lieut. Cambridgeshire, Bank House,
Wisbech.
1898 PEDLER, G. H., ESQ., L.E.C.P., 6, Trevor Terrace, Eutland
Gate, S.W.
1896 PEERS, C. E., ESQ., M.A.,107, Grosvenor Eoad, S.W.
1894 PERRY, HENRY, ESQ., Middleton, Plaistow Lane, Bromley,
Kent.
1862 *PERRY, MARTEN, ESQ., M.D., Spalding, Lincolnshire.
1888 PINCHES, JOHN HARVEY, ESQ., 27, Oxenden Street, Hay-
market.
1889 POWELL-COTTON, PERCY H. GORDON, ESQ., Quex Park,
Birchington, Thanet.
1887 PREVOST,, AUGUSTUS, ESQ., B.A., F.S.A., 79, Westbourne
Terrace, W.
1897 PRICE, F. G. HILTON, ESQ., F.S.A., F.G.S., 17, Collingham
Gardens, S.W.
1878 PRIDEAUX, COL. W. F., C.S.I., F.E.G.S., M.E.A.S.,
1, West Cliff Terrace, Eamsgate.
1899 PRITCHARD, JOHN E., ESQ., F.S.A., Guys Cliff, Sydenham
Eoad, Bristol.
1887 EANSOM, W., ESQ., F.S.A., F.L.S., Fairfield, Hitchiii, Herts.
1893 EAPHAEL, OSCAR C., ESQ., 37, Portland Place, W.
1890 EAPSON, E. J., ESQ., M.A., British Museum, W.C., Hon.
Secretary.
1848 EASHLEIGH, JONATHAN, ESQ., Menabilly, Par Station,
Cornwall.
1887 EEADY, W. TALBOT, ESQ., 55, Eathbone Place, W.
1882 EICHARDSON, A. B., ESQ., F.S.A.Scot., 4, Malvern Place,
Cheltenham.
1895 EIDGEWAY, PROFESSOR W., M.A., Fen Ditton, Cambridge.
1876 *EOBERTSON, J. D., ESQ., M.A., 21, Park Eoad, Eichmond
Hill, Surrey.
1889 EOME, WILLIAM, ESQ., C.C., F.S.A., F.L.S., Creeksea Place,
Burnham-on-Crouch.
1900 EOSKELL, EGBERT N., ESQ., 2, Warwick Gardens, Ken-
sington, W.
12 LIST OF MEMBERS.
ELECTED
1862 ROSTRON, SIMPSON, Esq., 1, Hare Court, Temple, E.G.
1896 *ROTH, BERNARD, ESQ., J.P., Wayside, Preston Park,
Brighton.
1872 *SALAS, MIGUEL T., ESQ., 247, "Florida Street, Buenos
1877 *SANDEMAN, LIEUT.-COL. JOHN GLAS, F.S.A., 24, Cambridge-
Square, Hyde Park, W.
1875 SCHINDLER, GENERAL A. H., c/o Messrs. W. Dawson and
Son, Bream's Buildings, Chancery Lane, W.C.
1895 SELBY, HENRY JOHN, ESQ., The Vale, Shortlands, Kent.
1890 SELTMAN.E. J.,Esq., Kinghoe, Great Berkhamsted, Herts.
1900 SHACKLES, GEORGE L., ESQ., Southfield, Hessle, near Hull.
1889 SIDEBOTHAM, E. J., ESQ., M.B.,Erlesdene, Bowdon, Cheshire.
1896 SIMPSON, C. E., ESQ., Huntriss Eow, Scarborough.
1893 *SiMS, E. F. M., ESQ., 12, Hertford Street, Mayfair, W.
1896 SINHA, KUMVAR KusHAL PAL EAIS OF KOTLA, Kotla, Agra,
India.
1887 SMITH, H. P., ESQ., 256, West 52nd Street, New York.
1883 SMITH, R. HOBAET, ESQ., 542, West 150th Street, New
York.
1866 SMITH, SAMUEL, ESQ., JuN.,25, Croxteth Road, Prince's Park,
Liverpool.
1890 SMITH, W. BERESFORD, ESQ., Kenmore, Vanbrugh Park
Eoad West, Blackheath.
1892 SMITH, VINCENT A., ESQ., Gwynfa, Cheltenham.
1881 SMITHE, J.DOYLE, ESQ., F.G.S., Ecclesdin, Upper Norwood.
1890 *SPENCE, C. J., ESQ., South Preston Lodge, North Shields.
1867 SPICER, FKEDERICK, ESQ., Woodbank, Prestwich Park, near
Manchester.
1887 SPINK, C. F., ESQ., 17, Piccadilly, W,
1894 SPINK, SAMUEL M., ESQ., 17, Piccadilly, W.
1890 STANFORD, CHARLES G. THOMAS-, ESQ., 3, Ennismore
Gardens, S.W.
1893 STOBART, J.M., ESQ., Glenelg, 18, Eouth Eoad, Wandsworth
Common, S.W.
1889 STORY, MAJOR-GEN. VALENTINE FREDERICK, The Forest,
Nottingham.
LIST OF MEMBERS. 13
ELECTED
1869 *STREATFEILD, UEV. GEORGE SIDNEY, Christchurch Vicarage,
Hampstead, N.W.
1896 STRIDE, ARTHUR, LEWIS, ESQ., J.P., Bush Hall, Hatfield.
1894 STROEHLIN, M., P. C., 86, Route de Chene, Geneva, Switzer-
land.
1864 *STUBBS, MAJOR-GEN. F. W., R.A., M.R.A.S., 2, Clarence
Ten-ace, St. Luke's, Cork, Ireland.
1875 STUDD, E. FAIRFAX, ESQ., Oxton, Exeter.
1893 STURT, LIEUT.-COL. R. N. (address not known).
1870 SUGDEN, JOHN, ESQ., Dockroyd, near Keighley.
1896 *TAFFS, H. W., ESQ., 35, Greenholm Road, Eltham, S.E.
1879 TALBOT,. LIEUT.-COL. THE HON. MILO GEORGE, E.E., 2,
Paper Buildings, Temple, E.C.
1897 TALBOT, W. S., ESQ., C. S. Settlement Officer, Jhelum,
Panjab, India.
1888 TATTON, THOS. E., ESQ., Wythenshawe, Northen den, Cheshire.
1892 *TAYLOR, E. WRIGHT, ESQ., F.S.A., 8, Stone Buildings,
Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
1887 TAYLOR, W. H., ESQ., The Croft, Wheelwright Road,
Erdington, near Birmingham.
1887 THAIRLWALL, T. J., ESQ., 12, Upper Park Eoad, Haverstock
Hill, N.W.
1880 *THEOBALD, W., ESQ., North Brow, 9, Croftsea Park, Ilfra-
combe.
1896 THOMPSON, HERBERT, ESQ., 35, Wimpole Street, W.
1896 THORBURN, HENRY W., ESQ., Cradock Villa, Bishop Auck-
land.
1888 THURSTON, E., ESQ., Central Government Museum, Madras.
1895 TILLSTONE, F. J., ESQ., The Librarian, Brighton Public
Library, Church Street, Brighton.
1894 TRIGGS, A. B., ESQ., Bank of New South Wales, Yass, New
South Wales.
1880 TRIST, J. W., ESQ., F.S.A., F.S.I., 3, Great St. Helens, E.C.
1887 TROTTER, LIEUT.-COL. HENRY, C.B., United Service Club.
1874 VERITY, JAMES, ESQ., The Headlands, Earls Heaton, Dewsbury
1893 VIRTUE, HERBERT, ESQ., 294, City Road, E.C.
14 LIST OF MEMBERS.
1874*VizE, GEORGE HENRY, ESQ., 15, Spencer Koad, Putaey,
S.W.
1899 VLASTO, MICHEL P., ESQ., 12, Allier des Cappucines, Mar-
seilles, France.
1892 VOST, DR. W., Jaunpur, North- West Provinces, India.
1883 WALKER, E. K., ESQ., M.A., Trin. Coll. Dub., Watergate,
Meath Road, Bray, Ireland.
1897 WALTERS, FRED. A., ESQ., F.S.A., 37, Old Queen Street,
Westminster, S.W.
1894 WARD, JOHN, ESQ., J.P., F.S.A., Lenoxvale, Belfast,
Ireland.
1889 WARREN, COL. FALKLAND, C.M.G., 911, Nicola Street, Van-
couver, British Columbia.
1901 * WAITERS, CHARLES A., ESQ., Highfield, Woolton Eoad,
Wavertree, Liverpool.
1901 WEBB, PERCY H., ESQ., Walton-on-Thames.
1887 *WEBER, EDWARD F., ESQ., 58, Alster, Hamburg, Germany.
1885 *WEBER, FREDERIC P., ESQ., M.D., F.S.A., 19, Harley
Street, W.
1883 *WEBER, SIR HERMANN, M.D., 10, Grosvenor Street, Gros-
venor Square, W.
1884 WEBSTER, W. J., ESQ., 109, Streatham Hill, S.W.
1899 WELCH, FRANCIS BERTRAM, ESQ., B.A., 8, Brandram Eoad,
Lee, Blackheath, S.E.
1883 WHELAN, F. E., ESQ., 6, Bloomsbury Street, W.C.
1869 *WIGRAM, MRS. LEWIS (address not known).
1881 WILLIAMSON, GEO. C., ESQ., F.E.S.L., The Mount, Guild-
ford, Surrey.
1869 WINSER, THOMAS B., ESQ., 81, Shooter's Hill Eoad, Blackheath,
S.E.
1868 WOOD, HUMPHREY, ESQ., F.S.A., Chatham.
1860 WORMS, BARON G. DE, F.E.G.S., F.S.A., V.P.E.S.L., E.G.S.,
D.L., J.P., 17, Park Crescent, Portland Place, W.
1880 WROTH, W. W., ESQ., British Museum.
LIST OP MEMBERS. 15
ELECTED
1885 WYON, ALLAN, ESQ., F.S.A., F. S.A.Scot., 2, Langham
Chambers, Portland Place, W.
1889 YEATES, F. WILLSON, ESQ., 7, Leiuster Gardens, Hyde
Park, W.
1880 YOUNG, ARTHUR W., ESQ., 12, Hyde Park Terrace, W.
1898 YOUNG, JAMES, ESQ., 11, Porchester Terrace, Lancaster
Gate, W.
1900 ZIMMERMAN, REV. JEREMIAH, M.A., D.D., 109, South
Avenue, Syracuse, New York, U.S.A.
HONORARY MEMBERS.
ELECTED
1898 His MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY, Palazzo Quirinale,
Rome.
1891 BABELON, M. ERNEST, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.
1862 BARTHELEMY, M. A. DE, 9, Rue d'Anjou, Paris.
1898 BLANCHET, M. J. A., 164, Boulevard Pereira, Paris.
1881 DANNENBERG, HERR H., N.W., Lessingstrasse, Berlin.
1899 DROUIN, M. EDMOND, 11, Rue de Verneuil, Paris.
1898 DRESSEL, DR. H., Miinz Kabinet, K. Museen, Berlin.
1899 GABRICI, PROF. DR., Ettore, Salita Stella, 21, Naples.
1893 GNECCHI, SIGR. FRANCESCO, 10, Via Filodrammatici, Milan.
1886 HERBST, HERR C. F., Director of the Museum of Northern
Antiquities and Inspector of the Coin Cabinet, Copenhagen.
1886 HILDEBRAND, DR. HANS, Riksantiquarien, Stockholm.
1873 IMHOOF-BLUMER, DR. F., Winterthur, Switzerland.
1893 JONGHE, M. le Vicomte B. de, Rue du Trone, 60, Brussels.
1878 KENNER, DR. F., K. K. Museen, Vienna.
1893 LOEBBECKE, HERR A., Cellerstrasse, 1, Brunswick.
1898 MADDEN, F. W., ESQ., Holt Lodge, 86, London Road,
Brighton.
1(1 LIST OF MEMBERS
KLECTED
1898 MILANI, PROF., Luigi Adriano, Florence.
1878 MOMMSEN, PROFESSOR DR. THEODOR, Charlottenburg, Berlin.
1899 PICK, DR. BEHRENDT, Herzogliche Bibliothek, Gotha.
1895 REINACH, M. THEODORE, 26, Rue Murillo, Paris.
1891 SVORONOS, M. J. N., Conservateur du Cabinet des Medailles,
Athens.
1881 TIESENHAUSEN, S. E. BARON WLADIMIR VON, Commission
Archdologique au Palais d'Hiver, St. Petersburg.
1886 WEIL, DR. RUDOLF, Konigliche Museen, Berlin.
MEDALLISTS
OF THE NUMISMATIC SOCIETY OF LONDON.
1883 CHARLES ROACH SMITH, ESQ., F.S.A.
1884 AQUILLA SMITH, ESQ., M.D., M.R.I.A.
1885 EDWARD THOMAS, ESQ., F.R.S.
1886 MAJOR-GENERAL ALEXANDER CUNNINGHAM, C.S.I., C.I.E.
1887 JOHN EVANS, ESQ., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., P.S.A.
1888 DR. F. IMHOOF-BLUMER, of Winterthur.
1889 PROFESSOR PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D., F.S.A.
1890 MONSIEUR J. P. Six, of Amsterdam.
1891 DR. C. LUDWIG MULLER, of Copenhagen.
1892 PROFESSOR R. STUART POOLE, LL.D.
1893 MONSIEUR W. H. WADDINGTON, Senateur, Membre de 1'In-
stitut, Paris.
1894 CHARLES FRANCIS KEARY, ESQ., M.A., F.S.A.
1895 PROFESSOR DR. THEODOR MOMMSEN, of Berlin.
1896 FREDERIC W. MADDEN, ESQ., M.R.A.S.
1897 DR. ALFRED VON SALLET, of Berlin.
1898 THE REV. CANON W. GREENWELL, M.A., F.R.S., F.S.A.
1899 MONSIEUR ERNEST BABELON, Membre de 1'Institut, Con-
servateur des Medailles, Paris.
1900 PROFESSOR STANLEY LANE-POOLE, M.A., LittD.
1901 S. E. BARON WLADIMIR VON TIESENHAUSEN.
A
NUMISMATIC HISTORY
OF THE REIGN OF
HENRY I.
(11001135)
FIRST PART.
BY
W. J. ANDBEW,
OF CADSTER, WHALEY BRIDGE.
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I.
11001135.
" All the influential men, both bishops as well as earls and barons, coined
their own money." HOVEDEN.
INTRODUCTION.
THE primary object of this work is in advance of that
suggested by its title. It is to demonstrate that, under the
Anglo-Saxon and Norman dynasties and probably at
that time upon the Continent of Europe also the general
monetary system was carried on under a feudal constitution
differing considerably from what has hitherto been sup-
posed. Of this system the following are the main principles.
1. The King's money was only issued by his direct
authority at a comparatively small proportion of
the mints, namely at those royal cities and towns
which, for the time being, remained under his
immediate control, i.e., in the words of Domesday,
in manu regis. The moneyers of these mints only
were therefore officers of the Crown, men, often,
of considerable wealth and importance, and in
virtue of their office tenants in capite of the King.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. B
NUMISMATIC CHROXICLE.
The Mints were however often farmed to the
Burgesses in the rent of their city or town.
2. The greater part of the country was at that time
granted by Charter to the Archbishops, Bishops,
Earls, and principal Barons, in return for spiritual
or military service. The grant of a city or town
included the mint, where one already existed, and in
some cases mints were expressly established by the
Charter granting a city or town which previously
had no mint. Thus most of the mints were under
the immediate jurisdiction of the territorial lords
and were included in their chartered privileges.
3. As the then doctrine of law was, that no one could
hold more that a life interest in any property,
the King could not grant the city or town (with
its privileges) for a longer period than during his
lifetime, after which it nominally reverted to his
successor. So also the grantee could only receive
it for his own life, and upon his death it nomin-
ally reverted to the Crown. Hence arose the
system of confirmation Charters, granted by each
new King, or received by each new lord. The
effect of this was that between the expiration of
the old Charter, from either of these two causes,
and the receipt of the confirmation Charter, all the
privileges of the lordship, including that of coinage
at the mints affected, were necessarily dormant.
4. " Out of feudalism arose the maxim that all lands
in the kingdom were originally granted by our
Kings, and held mediately or immediately of the
King, as lord paramount in consideration of
certain services to be rendered by the holder "
(Wharton's Law Lexicon). Hence the privilege of
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. d
coining and issuing the King's money, being con-
fined to the precincts of the mint and attached to
the soil by the Charter of grant, could not be dele-
gated, assigned, or farmed by the grantee without a
further Royal Charter of assent and confirmation.
The effect of this was, that the privilege remained
a purely inalienable and official prerogative, only
exercisable by the territorial lord himself when
within his lordship, and was dormant during his
absence abroad. The moneyers therefore of these
mints were not officers of the Crown, but merely
servants of their lord. The lord paid certain fees
to the King's cuneator for the dies, and in return
received the profits of the coinage, or whatever
share of them was limited to him by his Charter.
The reign of Henry I has been selected as the initiatory
proof of this new phase in the history of our early con-
stitutional coinage for a variety of reasons. It con-
veniently commences within some fourteen years of the
great topographical survey Domesday, and it includes
the only existing Norman Exchequer Return we have,
namely, an odd volume for the year 1129 1130 of, what
was practically the annual sequel to Domesday, the Pipe
Roll. It embraces a period when the King and his
Barons spent as much of their time in Normandy as in
England, which fact clearly explains the intermittent
character of the output of the chartered mints. It is the
reign of which less has been written for the numismatist
than of any other, and so little is known of its coins,
that no attempt has hitherto been made even to arrange
the order of their types, and the types actually assigned to
it include several which must be assigned to the time of
4 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Stephen. Therefore it is thought that by choosing almost
untrodden ground, the materials, of which the structure of
proof is composed, may themselves be of interest and value.
Coins are the illustrations of ' Time's history,' and to col-
lect them with any other purpose in view, is almost as use-
less as the hoarding of a miser's gold. If all other records
of a nation were lost, much could be gathered from a study
of its coinage ; and now that a new light is thrown upon
our feudal monetary conditions, it is hoped that the
interest in our coins will be increased. By it, the historian
should be able to check many uncertain dates in our early
records, for by its help he can establish the dates of the
presence of the King and his Barons in England or their
absence abroad at any specified time. It also enables him
to test the validity of our Charters, to prove the accuracy
of Domesday, and, in other reigns, to follow the effect of
sieges and counter-sieges during our civil wars and insur-
rections. To the topographer and genealogist it almost
writes the history of scores of the principal towns
and families in England. To the numismatist it dates
every type; it explains why so many are missing
from most of the mints ; it simplifies the appropriation
of coins, hitherto doubtful, to their proper mints ; it ex-
plains those curious mint-marks or ornaments upon many
of them, and finally it proves how complete is our series
of existing specimens, as representatives of the total
coinage issued, and it even tells us what missing varieties
we may yet hope to discover.
The writer will be grateful if those who possess coins of
Henry I not included in the following pages, or any of
William I, William II, or Stephen, will communicate par-
ticulars of them to him and thus assist the study of
Norman numismatics.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. &
CHAPTER I.
THE NORMAN COINAGE.
AT the era of the Conquest of England the coinage of the
Anglo-Saxons was second in importance to none in Europe,
and the silver penny of that day as a pure and standard
medium of commerce, and as the prototype of much of the
money of neighbouring countries on the Continent, can
only be compared with our golden sovereign of to-day.
In like manner the penny was the maximum unit of
currency, and if we eliminate our modern small change
from the comparison, as being then represented by a
system of barter, the parallel between our sovereign and
the ancient silver penny is remarkable, and the modern
gold coinage of sovereigns and half-sovereigns conveys a
very fair idea of the actual currency of the penny and its
mechanically divided fractions of the half-penny and
farthing of long ago. The analogy might be continued in
many directions, and even in that of quantity, for our
Saxon forefathers probably circulated in their every day
life as many or as few silver pennies as we, outside the
commercial centres of trade and exchange, do pounds in
actual specie. A comparison of their respective purchasing
power, however, no longer bears out this relationship, for
in later times universal facilities of import and export
have tended to cheapen all those necessaries of life by
which alone we can gauge the former value of money.
The country then had to support its own population, but
now its total food products would only sustain it for some
two hundred days of the year, and thus, if we had to return
to the former condition of affairs, all necessaries would be
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
at famine prices, and the purchasing power of the sovereign
would be no greater than that of the old penny.
The proportionate value of the necessaries of life has re-
mained much the same. In the eleventh century the
value of a fowl or duck was, as it is now, about the same
as the daily wage of an agricultural labourer, then 2d.,
and, therefore, that amount may, for this purpose, be con-
sidered as equal to perhaps half-a-crown of our money ;
a sheep was ten, and a hog fifteen times the value of a
fowl, a cow four times that of a hog, and a horse four
times that of a cow. The price of corn was no criterion,
for it was necessarily so dependent upon the changing
character of the seasons that Roger of Wendover, one of
our early chronicler's, quotes it as being in one year
eighteen pence, and in another six shillings the quarter.
Taking the penny, therefore, as representing one shilling
and three-pence of our money, the respective prices
would be approximately as follows :
Agricul-
tural Daily
Wage.
Fowl.
Sheep.
Hog.
Cow.
Horse.
Norman money .
s. d.
002
s. d.
002
s. d.
018
s. d.
026
s. d.
10
2
Our money at
Is. 3d. to the
Norman penny
026
026
150
1 17 6
7 10
30
But in point of fact such articles were rarely paid for in
cash, and therefore the above figures more properly repre-
sent their nominal value in exchange. Indeed, William I
by statute prohibited any sale of cattle for money save "in
the markets before three witnesses," and it was not until
the reign of Henry I that even the King's taxes were,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE KEIGN OF HENRY I. 7
" for the most part, paid in coin " instead of in kind (" Dia-
logue of the Exchequer"). Nevertheless, in the latter
reign, money appears to have already entered sufficiently
into the daily requirements of life as to be usually carried
by the general public ; for Wendover, in recording an
anecdote of the year 1126, not only shows that a man who
was hunting had twopence half-penny in his wallet, but
that he was expected to have cash upon him, for a men-
dicant begged a "piece of money " of him. In a later
passage, the same authority incidentally mentions that at
the funeral of Bishop Hugh, A.D. 1200, a woman in the
crowd within Lincoln Cathedral " had her pocket picked
of her purse." Thus, we may infer that, during the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, the use of money was
gradually superseding the ancient custom of barter and
payment in kind.
The Norman coinage consisted solely of the silver penny,
which was, however, cut into half-pennies and farthings
as presently described. Its weight, as established by the
Conqueror, and continued until the reign of Edward I,
was 22f grains, and its assay was in the proportion of
11 ozs. 2 dwts. fine to 18 dwts. of alloy to the pound troy,
a standard which, after many vicissitudes of debasement, is
that of our silver coinage of to-day. The curious document,
" Dialogue of the Exchequer," before mentioned, gives us
minute details of the method then adopted to test the
money of the revenue before it was accepted from the
Sheriffs of the various Counties by the King's Exchequer,
and, although it was not. strictly speaking, the trial of the
pix (which was a similar test of the money taken direct
from the moneyers), it was no doubt conducted upon an
identical system. A translated extract from this twelfth-
century record upon the point may be of interest.
8 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
" When the money is sent to the Exchequer to be counted
one of them diligently mixes the whole together, so that the
better pieces may not be by themselves and the worse by them-
selves, but mixed in order that they may correspond in weight ;
This being done the Chamberlain weighs in a scale as much as
is necessary to make a pound to the Exchequer. But if the
number shall exceed twenty shillings by more than six pence in
a pound it is considered unfit to be received ... but of what-
ever weight the pennies are found to be he puts apart into a
cup one , that is twenty shillings of them, of which a test shall
be made. . . . The melter receiving these counts them with
his own hand and then places them on a vessel of burning
embers ... he reduces them to a mass blowing upon them
and cleansing the silver . . . and then before the eyes of all
he weighs it (the residuum) with the aforesaid pound weight.
Moreover, he then supplies what the fire has consumed, putting
in coin out of that same box, until what has been tested is in
equilibrium."
The writer then explains at considerable length, that if
the money had been in currency, the Sheriff should be
allowed a depreciation of six pennies in the , but if it
was new, only three or four. Beyond this, the loss fell
upon him ;
" unless, perhaps, the coins are new and not customary, and
the inscription upon them betrays their producer, for then that
moneyer shall be strictly called to account for his work, and,
according to the established laws, shall be condemned or
absolved without loss to the Sheriff; but if, the coin being
proved and reproved by testing, the moneyer shall have been
condemned and punished, the coins shall be reduced to a mass
by the melter of the Exchequer . . . and its weight shall be
computed to the Sheriff. But all this is almost abolished now
(circa 1180) and much relaxed ; since, with regard to money,
all sin in common." Henderson's Historical Documents, p. 28-54.
This margin in weight of six pennies in every 240
seems to have been fully taken advantage of in the
minting of the coins themselves, for the average weight of
the pennies of the Conqueror, which we possess, are a little
below this net allowance, whilst those of William II
exactly tally with it. The money of Henry I varies
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 9
much in this respect, according to the actual date of its
types, but the coins of Stephen " all sin in common."
In the words of the " Dialogue," " All money of this
kingdom ought to have the stamped image of the King "
on the obverse, and this rule (with the exception of a few
baronial coins in the reign of Stephen) was strictly adhered
to under the Norman dynasty, but the reverse was the
field for an almost unlimited variety of device or type.
Through the centre of nearly every reverse, however,
runs the ancient symbol of Christianity, the cross, in some
form or another, hence "cross andpile" a custom dating
from at least the sixth century, and only discarded in
comparatively recent times ; if, indeed, a survival of it is
not still discernible on the modern florin. The arms of
this cross were found to be a convenient line of guidance
for the shears, and the Saxon and Norman half-pence and
farthings were formed by simply severing the penny into
equal sections in this manner. So strictly was this line
observed in cutting the coin that, if the cross exists and is
not followed by the severance, it is sufficient to arouse
suspicion that the coin is merely a broken penny converted
into a cut half-penny.
It is true that round silver half-pennies, or what are
believed to be half-pennies, were for a short period issued
in England in the reigns of Alfred the Great and his
immediate successors, but they seem soon to have been
supplanted by these cut coins, which were certainly in
existence at the same time or immediately afterwards.
Perhaps the earliest specimens extant of these cut coins
are a severed half-penny of Siefred in the British Museum,
and another in Major Creeke's collection of Anlaf, both of
Northumbria in the first half of the tenth century. Their
origin may have arisen of necessity when the copper styca,
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. C
10 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
or mite, of that country, was superseded by the southern or
perhaps Danish penny in the ninth century, and smaller
change must have been much in demand. Perhaps the
people originally severed the penny themselves, but this
was not so in later times, and in the days of Henry I the
cut half-pennies and farthings were certainly, as such,
issued direct from the mint.
As this statement is not in accordance with popular
opinion, one or two reasons may be given for it. In 1108,
Henry issued a mandate against debasement of the coinage,
which, according to the contemporary chroniclers (Flor-
ence of Worcester ; Simeon of Durham ; Roger de Hove-
den, &c.), concluded with the words:
" and that no penny or halfpenny (obolus) which he also
ordered to be of a round form, or even a farthing if it were
perfect should be refused."
The parenthesis that the half-penny in future must be of
a round form can only have been a direction to the
moneyers, for no one else could be affected by it. More-
over, if they had not been in the habit of issuing the cut
half-pennies, something more than a mere direction as
to its shape would have been necessary, before a half-
penny could have become legal tender and current coin.
This direction in the middle of a proclamation against
debasement seems out of place, until light is thrown upon
it by an examination of the cut half-pennies themselves.
We have, perhaps, a hundred or two of these coins issued
in Norman times, and it is significant that, when weighed
against the pennies, it requires some twenty- seven or
twenty-eight of them to equal a dozen pennies of the same
types, and no two half-pennies have yet been found when
put together to compose the original penny. The trial of
the pix would detect a short-weight penny, but, with the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE RE1ON OF HENRY I. 11
cut half-penny, the money er was safe, for he could sever
the penny nearly, but not quite through the centre, issue
the lighter portion and return the heavier to the crucible,
then, if any question arose, the heavier segment would be
presumed to be somewhere in circulation.
The fact that the fees, payable by the public upon con-
verting a pound of bullion into the 240 pennies into
which it was coined, were sixteen pence half-penny, tends
to show that the moneyers issued that coin in change.
And part of the miracle in Wendover's account of the con-
version of St. Wulfric (the hunter of 1126) rests upon the
presence of two pennies and a half Q^ " the new coinage "
in his wallet, whereas, if the money had already been in
circulation, and so cut by the people, the incident would
have been nothing out of the common.
No doubt it was Henry's intention that a round half-
penny should be issued. The coinage would have been
improved, and more fees received by the Crown, for the
dies, but what was the inducement to the moneyers ? To
the honest, it meant double the work of striking pennies
and more dies to pay for, without any additional return.
To the dishonest, it offered no temptation, for a round
half-penny would have been as easy to test by the pix as
the penny. Therefore the moneyers seern to have placed
a broad interpretation upon the order, which, in view of
the explanation of its insertion just given, it very fairly
bears, namely, " If you issue half -pennies at all they must
in future be of a round form." As a result none were
issued, and although we have the cut specimens of the
types prior to this date 1108 we have none for many
years afterwards, until just previous to 1125, when the
coinage once more fell into a debased condition, and the
severest penalties were enforced against the moneyers.
12 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
That no such thing as a round half -penny was issued at
this period seems quite clear, for not only is there no evi-
dence of it in our finds of Henry's coins, but anything of
the kind was quite unknown previous to John's issue of
the round Irish half-pennies. Otherwise Wendover,
writing of them in 1210, would not have suggested that
the latter at last fulfilled the prophecy of Merlin that " the
tokens of commerce should be divided, and the half round."
As a matter of fact, the cut coins were not finally abolished
until the reign of Edward I, when, under the year 1279,
Florence of Worcester's continuator records that :
"An alteration was made in the English coinage, the triangular
farthing being changed to a round one, but the old current
money was for a time allowed to remain in circulation."
The " triangular farthing " can only refer to the cut
quarter-penny, and as it was " current money " it must
have been issued by the money ers. Further, such half-
pence and farthings issued to the close of the reign of
Henry III are common enough in our cabinets.
CHAPTER II.
THE SUCCESSION OF TYPES AND THE LEGAL TENDER.
THE student of Domesday will notice, in the accounts of
various mints, a constant repetition of the entry that, in
addition to their rent, the moneyers paid certain fees to
the King whenever the money was changed. These fees
were for the new dies, and the change of the money implies
the issue of a fresh type. The natural result of this method
of procedure was that, as money was always in demand,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 13
and the means of obtaining it so readily at the King's
command, proclamations of new coinages became, in Saxon
times, more and more frequent, until, during the twenty-
five years of Edward the Confessor's reign, we know that
at least a dozen distinct types were issued.
To proclaim a new coinage without placing some re-
striction upon the currency of the old would have been
quite useless. The moneyers would have continued to use
their old dies rather than pay for new ones, and it would
have been no hardship to the people, as we are expressly
told it was, unless they were periodically compelled to
change their old money for new or as the " Dialogue of
the Exchequer" calls it, " present money," thus contribu-
ting large fees to the moneyers, who in turn contributed
to the Exchequer. How little mere surmise there is in
this may be shown by reference to any of the hoards of the
period, which, though probably representing someone's
savings of many years or " the family stocking," never
contain more than four or five different types at the most.
Compare this with the finds deposited during the Stuart
period, when a greater margin of legal tender was allowed,
and we discover in the latter, coins of as many different
Sovereigns to say nothing of their various coinages
as there were types in the earlier finds ; and to-day, 20
in silver would probably contain more varieties of types
than any of the finds of coins of either Henry I or
Stephen. Thus, in early times, the limit of legal tender
must have very closely followed upon the coinage of the
day, or otherwise twenty or thirty types at least would
have found their way into the larger hoards.
This system of constant change in the tender appears
to have been carried to excess in later Saxon times, and
was naturally a great hardship to the people, who were
14 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
put to the cost of renewing their money so often, and
therefore, at some time subsequent to the Conquest, the
tax of Monetagium was introduced. This was, in effect, a
compact between King and people, that in return for a
hearth tax of twelve pence, payable every third year, the
money should not be changed oftener than once in that
period. There is one reference to " monedagium " (sic) in
Domesday (under Lincoln), hence it was probably intro-
duced by the first William to propitiate his new subjects,
as the lesser of two evils, although it is usually credited
to Ralph Flambard, the extortionate Justiciary of Rufus.
But, whatever its actual date, it is clear that it soon
became far more unpopular than the old custom which it
was intended to ameliorate. If it was instituted imme-
diately after the Conquest, it certainly did not restrict the
number of new coinages to one in every three years, for we
have examples of nearly a score of distinct types issued
during the thirty-four years of the reigns of the two
Williams. But if we accept it as referring to changes in
legal tender for the time being, then, as the finds prove
that two or three types, though issued successively, were
always retained in currency at the same time, the period
exactly suffices for a change every third year.
The more diplomatic Henry at once abolished this tax
by his Coronation Charter, in which he says : " Mone-
tagium commune quod capiebatur per civitates et comi-
tatus quod non fuit tempore regis Edwardi hoc ne amodo
fiat omnino defendo." This, however, was a doubtful
benefit to the people, as it left him a free hand to change
the tender as often as he wished, and as his hold of the
Crown strengthened he seems to have more frequently
exercised the privilege. For instance, the two earliest
hoards deposited in his reign contained four or fiye
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 15
different types, whilst the last two disclose only one or
two types. Moreover, during his reign of thirty-five years,
he issued no fewer than fifteen distinct coinages, and it is
little to be wondered at that the moneyers, who thus had
so many extra fees to pay, should have endeavoured to
recoup themselves from the public by debasing and light-
ening the coinage.
Stephen's pecuniary necessities no doubt compelled him
to continue the system during his troubled reign, but on
the accession of Henry II it was abolished, for the civil
wars of the former had shaken the stability of the Crown and
strengthened the power of the people, and from that time
to the days of Henry VIII, no King of England ventured
to tamper with the coinage for the purpose of his indi-
vidual gain.
So drastic and popular was this reform that the custom
of frequent changes in the coinage was carried from one
extreme to the other. Henry II only issued two coin-
ages, and probably if the first had not been of wretched
workmanship, the second would never have been required.
The coins of his first issue, known as the " Tealby type,"
are so angular in shape, that one can readily understand
John de Taxter, who used them, describing the second
type by contrast as " a new coinage, of a round shape,
struck in England." This was the famous " short cross
type," which, as Sir John Evans discovered, was continued
unchanged, even as to the King's name, throughout the
reigns of Henry II's two sons and into that of his
grandson. During the whole period of its issue, there
could have been no change in the limit of legal tender, for
there was no line of demarcation upon the coins themselves
by which it could be defined. Any doubts entertained
that Richard and John did, in fact, continue their father's
16 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
coinage unchanged, may be set at rest by reference to
De Taxter, under the year 1205, for he tells us that " The
money issued long before in the year 1158 was this year
recoined."
In the face, therefore, of these extracts from De Taxter,
and of similar statements to be found in nearly all the
chroniclers of the Norman period, as, for instance, the
expression in Wendover, "for at that time (1126) there
was a new coinage in England in the days of Henry I,"
and further of the constant references in Domesday to pay-
ments " when the money was changed " ; and again of the
direct evidence of our hoards, it is surely impossible to
argue that the various types of our coinage were not issued
then, as they are now, in strict succession throughout the
whole country. But when we come to the consideration
of Henry's types, and the local history of the various
mints from which they were issued, this fact will be
abundantly proved.
CHAPTER III.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MINTS.
As the issuing of money was in its origin a strictly royal
privilege, it follows that, in the earliest times, the cur-
rency, like the laws, would emanate from the centre of
government in every state or division, for it was but little
required by the people, and one mint must have been ample
for a large district. Thus the Romans in Britain governed
the country from a general centre of operations, changed
from time to time, and it is probable that whatever
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 17
coinage was issued by them in this country was minted
at such centre.
On the division of England under -the early Saxons, as
each King would coin from his centre of government for
the time being, there would, as yet, arise no more necessity
for the name of the mint to appear on the coins than there
is to-day, for each state would have but one mint. The
name of the moneyer only would be required, so that his
responsibility for their issue could be traced, and thus on
the coinage of that period we find the names of the various
moneyers unaccompanied by that of any place of mintage.
As the power of the Church increased, the Archbishops
of Canterbury were granted, or had already acquired, the
privilege of coinage in the eighth century ; and so long
as the centre of government of Kent was at Canterbury,
and the money, both regal and archiepiscopal, was issued
there, it was unnecessary to name the mint. But
towards the end of that century, when Offa, King of
Mercia, whose centre of government, and therefore of
coinage, was in that country, subdued Kent, there would,
for the first time, be two places of mintage contem-
poraneously issuing money under one Sovereign. The
difficulty of identification would not immediately be
apparent, for the regal and archiepiscopal coins were
obviously dissimilar. But as OfFa's action had shown
that it did not necessarily follow that the regal currency
of a State was issued from its own capital, Baldred, on
his accession to the Kingdom of Kent in 805, introduced
the custom of adding the name of the place of issue Can-
terbury upon some of his coins, and Vulfred, his Arch-
bishop, did likewise.
This custom gradually gained ground until, during the
troubled reign of Alfred, when the seat of government
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. D
18 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
was so often changed, we find upon the coins the names
of at least seven cities in the southern half of England,
but there seems no 'reason to suppose that each had not
been for a time the centre of government for its dis-
trict.
It is, however, in the famous law of Athelstan that we
find the establishment of a general coinage throughout
the country, which should be continued irrespective of
changes of government, for by it he provided permanent
mints in many of the most populated portions of the
Kingdom. This law was the result of a great synod at
" Greatanlea," and it was only natural that, in the distri-
bution of so profitable a privilege as the regal mintage, the
Church should stipulate for some share in it, and thus we
find that in the larger districts, where several money ers
were required, they are divided between Church and
State, some being under the King and some under the
Bishop of the diocese, or even the Abbot. The eflfects of
this concession were far more reaching than could prob-
ably be anticipated. Now that the profits of coinage
were no longer the sole prerogative of the Crown or of
the Archbishops, it was only to be expected that the
great Ealdormen, whose power in their provinces was
often only secondary to that of the King himself,
would petition for privileges similar to those of the
Bishops and Abbots, and there can be little doubt from
the subsequent evidence given us in Domesday that they
obtained them. There would, however, be this dis-
tinction between the position of the grantees under Athel-
stan's law and that of those who claimed under subsequent
and individual charters of favour. The former would be
confirmed under the general charter of privileges granted
by each King on his accession, but the latter would also
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 19
require charters of confirmation to the heir upon the
death of each grantee. In other words, one of the latter
grants was a purely personal privilege as at that time,
indeed, was the tenure of the land itself to which it was
attached only exercisable by the grantee himself ; it was
therefore dormant during his absence abroad, and became
extinct upon his death until regranted to his heir. More-
over, it required a confirmation charter upon the accession
of every King. It must not, however, be imagined that
a separate charter dealing with the right of coinage was
required on the succession of the lord or grantee, as the
general words in the usual charter accepting service from
him for all hia lands and honours and confirming his
rights therein, included the minting rights, whether
specified or not. The effect of this was, that the power of
issuing the King's money from a mint granted by charter
to an individual was strictly confined to the jurisdiction
of the particular mint, and entailed the presence of the
grantee in his lordship at the time of such issue.
There was, however, nothing special in the local and
personal character of this tenure of a mint by grant,
for it applied to most, if not to all, of the privileges
accorded by a Sovereign to a subject. Knight's service,
Grand Serjeanty, Cornage, and, in fact, all early tenures
and privileges from the Crown, were of a personal charac-
ter for a life estate only and entailed personal service.
But, perhaps, an exactly parallel instance was that of
the Court Baron, for this originally could only be held
by the lord himself, and within the ' manor. Too much
importance cannot be given to this question, for it ex-
plains the intermittent character of the issue of most of
the mints in England from the days of Athelstan to those
of Edward I, when the feudal character of the coinage
20 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
was entirely changed. If the lord were non-resident in
his barony, there could be no coinage at the mint or
mints of which he was grantee within it. Nor, in any
case, after a new King's accession until a confirmation
charter had been granted to him.
In the unfortunate reign of Ethelred II three causes
tended to spread these chartered mints throughout the
country. First, the imposition of Danegelt, which was the
earliest land tax levied in England, and which, requir-
ing an enormous coinage, rendered a mint a most profit-
able possession. Second, the King's pecuniary difficulties,
which induced him to constantly issue fresh coinages for
the sake of the fees they brought in, thereby necessitating
the frequent change in the tender, until, in view of the
difficulties of locomotion, it was essential that the people
should have the means of changing their money almost
at their doors. Third, the weakness of the Crown, which
prohibited a refusal of the right of a mint to any power-
ful petitioner. Thus, at the commencement of Ethelred's
reign, there were not a score of mints, whilst at its
close there were over fifty.
This condition of the coinage obtained until the acces-
sion of Henry II, when, as we have seen, the arbitrary
system of frequent changes in the tender was abolished,
and thus a mint was no longer a profitable privilege.
The result was remarkable. The number of mints in
England immediately dropped from fifty under Stephen,
to about thirty-five in Henry II's first type, and to seven-
teen or eighteen in his second, showing that most of the
grantees of the chartered mints entirely ceased to exer-
cise, or were refused a renewal of their privileges. Or to
put it in the words of Hoveden, in his oft-quoted but
misinterpreted passage :
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 21
" In the reign of Stephen all the influential men, both
bishops as well as Earls and Barons, coined their own money.
But from the time when the Duke (Henry II) came over, he
rendered null the coin of most of them."
If the reader will glance for a moment at Ruding's
Annals of the Coinage, vol. ii., he will notice that upon
four out of every five mints described a comment is made
to this effect : " This mint is not mentioned in Domesday,
but it was worked as appears by coins of William I
now remaining of it," but no explanation is offered by
Ruding. To understand the apparent omission one must
consider what the primary object of Domesday was. The
Saxon Chronicle tells us that
In 1085 King William " sent his men throughout England,
into every shire, and caused them to ascertain how many hun-
dred hides of land it contained, and what lands the King pos-
sessed therein, what cattle there were in the several counties,
and how much revenue he ought to receive yearly from each."
The explanation is now quite clear. Where the King
then received the whole or any portion of the firma or
rent of the mint, it was duly credited in the returns, but
where such had been granted to the baron or lord
entirely, as was the case in nearly, if not al! 3 the mints of
minor importance, it would have been worse than useless-
nay, a blunder to have returned it in the revenue
which "the King ought to receive yearly from each
county."
We may, therefore, accept Domesday in toto, as showing
us what mints in the year 1086, or thereabouts, still
coined as a whole or in part, under the King's direct
authority, though they were often farmed by him to the
burgesses of their towns. But all other mints then in
existence were in the hands of grantees of the Crown
under charter. This is the more apparent because, in
22 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
several instances, Domesday shows, by some incidental
reference to a moneyer, or to the mint as a house, that
the latter was then in being, and yet no return is made
of its revenue. There were, however, some changes or
grants of the royal mints between that year and the
accession of Henry I in 1100, although, in most cases,
the position appears to have been retained.
But there is this marked constitutional difference
between the powers of the mints returned in Domesday
as accounting for their firma directly to the Crown, and
of those which are not. The former coined under the
authority of the King, and therefore were enabled to do so
continuously, type after type ; the latter had only power
to issue their money during the residence in his barony
of their immediate lord, and therefore their output was
intermittent, according to such lord's presence or absence.
During the Saxon period this distinction was not so
important as after the Conquest, for the Saxon lords
were resident here, but the Norman barons, in whom the
chartered mints were vested, spent more of their time
abroad than in England, and during Henry Fs wars in
Normandy, the absence of the grantees caused these mints
to be dormant for long intervals, and this circumstance
accounts for the great rarity in our cabinets of the types
current in England during certain years of the reign.
Until now the general impression seems to have pre-
vailed, that every mint of a reign issued a complete
series of the King's types, and that, if we could only dig
long enough, we should find every type for every mint ;
that our Norman forefathers had. as perfect a system of
government mints in constant operation throughout the
land, as we have local post-offices to-day, and, in the
words of our standard authorities, " that our early records,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 23
" Domesday, the chronicles, charters, and supposed enact-
" ments, and the coins as we now have them, throw no
"light upon each other." These are the theories which it
is here the primary object to controvert and the impor-
tance of the attempt to prove, that an absolutely contrary
system of coinage existed, must be the apology for the
length of this treatise.
It is now claimed that those mints which are not in-
cluded in the Domesday Survey, and those which are
mentioned as having been the King's in the time of
the Confessor but are not returned as King William's in
1086, and, again, those from which the King only re-
ceived a portion of the revenue, were chartered mints.
Therefore, a study of their history will at once disclose
the years during which only there could have been an
issue of coinage from those mints. The proof in support
of this claim will commence with the history of the first
of Henry's mints, and finish with that of the last. It
will be followed throughout the coinage of Stephen, and
sufficient has been noted of the history of the mints under
the Williams to show that they are no exceptions to this
rule.
With the result of this reasoning discovery if you
like before us, the whole difficulty of appropriating to
their respective reigns the various types, now classed
together, of the two Williams disappears, and it becomes
as easy to assign the true order of their succession, and to
ascertain the particular years during which each type was
issued, as it has here been to assort the much scarcer coins
of Henry I. We have consequently the material for a
similar work upon the general Norman coinage which is
now in progress.
But the question is not confined to numismatics alone.
24 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
It will help to check, and perhaps correct, many histori-
cal dates and events. If the history of a particular mint
serves to fix the dates of its coinage, so the coinage of a
mint should fix the dates of its history. Only one example
need now be given. The creation of the Earldom of
Gloucester in Henry's reign has been assigned at various
times to half-a-dozen years between 1105 and 1122. But
Mr. Bound, in his exhaustive work Geoffrey de Handeville,
recently proved the true date to be 1121- June 1123. When
Robert Fitz-Roy obtained the Earldom of Gloucester he
became the grantee of the mints of Gloucester and Bristol,
and the first type he issued and he issued it concurrently
from both mints was the one for the years 1121-1123,
and his coins of it could not have been issued later than
the spring of the latter year (see Bristol and Gloucester).
CHAPTER IV.
THE MONEYERS AND THEIR DIES.
FROM the eminent position of his name upon the reverse
of the coinage, one would have thought that the moneyer
was a high official of State, but this is far from being a
fact. In the earliest Saxon times, perhaps, he was an
officer of the Crown attendant on the King's person, and
the designer of his own dies ; hence the moneyers of the
royal mints seem to have retained certain privileges, for
they remained men of importance and tenants in capite of
the Crown. But, as the demand for coin increased, and
the mints became gradually extended throughout the
country, the respective offices of designer of the coinage
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 25
and of the local moneyer became separate of necessity.
The designer or cuneator seems to have remained an
individual official of the Exchequer, but the moneyers
of the chartered mints at least, as they increased in
number, sank in importance until, in the reign of the
Confessor, we have three or four hundred of them coining
at one time or another, amongst the seventy mints or so
of that reign.
It is almost needless to remark that, when fresh types,
or coinages, as they were then called, were issued through-
out England every two or three years, their designs and
dies must have emanated from one common centre, or no
such issues could have been simultaneous. Originally, no
doubt, this centre was at Winchester, but at some time
prior to the reign of Henry I, probably soon after the
Conquest, it was removed to London. As one would
naturally expect, the head of this centre was the king's
goldsmith, and, in the reigri of William I, he was Otto
(or Otho) Aurifaber. Otto the goldsmith is mentioned in
Domesday as holding lands in Essex and Suffolk, and it
would seem, from certain writs of the Exchequer, issued
in the reigns of Henry III and Edward I, that he and
his descendants held these lands and others subsequently
granted to them in petit serjeanty as cutters and keepers of
the king's dies. This shows that the office was strictly here-
ditary, and it remained in the family, though not always
exercised by its members, until the reign of Richard II.
That Otto was the engraver of the types is quite clear
from various Exchequer records, but that he was the
designer of them can only be inferred from his position,
and the absence of any mention of a separate official for
that purpose. But Orderic tells us that :
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. E
26 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
In 1087, Rufus " delivered to Otho Aurifaber a large quan-
tity of gold, silver, and precious stones, ordering him to erect ^a
monument of extraordinary magnificence over his father's
(William I) tomb. Accordingly, in obedience to the royal
commands, he executed the work in an admirable manner, and
the tomb may be seen resplendent with gold, silver and gems."
Surely the man to whom the design of the famous tomb
of the Conqueror at Caen was entrusted was no mere die-
sinker ; and so we may safely take it for granted that he
was also the designer of the coinage.
Otto the elder died in 1101, and Henry I then con-
firmed the office to his son, Otto the younger (see page 47).
He, in turn, died before 1130, and in that year, as we
shall presently see (pages 87 and 97), his son William
Fitz Otho came of age and succeeded him. The family
had now acquired great wealth, for William Fitz Otho
received rents from several counties, a clerk of his is
mentioned in the roll of 1130, and it is recorded that
one of his men was killed in Devonshire.
We have thus some material evidence that the Norman
coinages were designed and engraved by Otto the gold-
smith and his descendants, and the only question now
remaining is as to who cut the working dies ? From a
numismatist's point of view it would be more interesting
to think that these were made at the respective mints, and
that when we hold a coin of some outlying mint in our
hands, we should see the local work of that mint complete
in miniature handicraft. But, unfortunately, such was
not the case in the reigns of the Norman kings, or at least
the presumptive evidence is against it. During the sieges
and counter- sieges of Stephen's reign, however, there were
numerous exceptions, and in this fact lies not the least of
the attractions which make the study of his coins more
interesting than that of the coinage of any other reign.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 27
The presumptive evidence that the working dies were
sunk and issued by the workmen of Otto and his
descendants at London has to be gathered from numerous
documents and then compared as a whole. Domes-
day, when giving the returns of the mints in which
the king still retained an interest, frequently repeats
the expression : " Quando moneta vertebatur guisque mone-
tarius dabat xx solidos ad Londoniam pro cuneis monetcB
ucdpiendis" (Worcester). To pay the money to London
for receiving the dies is not quite the same as to pay
the money for receiving the dies from London, and it
might be argued that, in any case, when a fresh type
was issued, a pair of dies or devices must have been dis-
tributed to each mint from which the working dies could
be copied. Henry I, in confirming the privileges of a
mint to the Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, directed the
writ to the Bishop of Norwich (as the Spiritual Lord), to
his Justiciaries or Sheriffs, and to Otto the Goldsmith of
London (Otto the younger). The inclusion of Otto in
this writ could only be for the purpose of a direction to
him to supply the Abbot with the necessary dies. The
Pipe Roll of 1130 records the murder of one of William
Fitz Otho's men in Devonshire, which suggests the proba-
bility that he was there distributing the dies. It also
mentions the Aurifabri of London twice, as receiving fees
from the Exchequer in the first instance, and, in the
second, as receiving sixty shillings and ten pence for coal
or charcoal, which shows that they carried on a consider-
able public undertaking, nor are any other Aurifabri
mentioned throughout the Roll. In the forty-ninth year
of Henry III, Thomas Fitz Otto, the then representative
of the family and hereditary cuneator, successfully peti-
tioned the King in the Court of Exchequer for the return
28 NUMISMATIC CHROMCLE.
of the old and broken dies as his perquisite, alleging that
thev belonged to him of right and inheritance, and that
his ancestors had been accustomed to have them. A writ
dated November 17th, 1338, directed to John de Flete,
warden of the King's mint in London, commanded him :
" to make three dies of hard and sufficient metal at the expense
of the Abbot, one for pennies, another for balf-pennies, and tbe
third for farthings, for the making of money in a certain place
in Reading with such impression and circumscription as the
Abbot should appoint ; and to send the same as soon as pos-
sible to the King's Exchequer at Westminster, that they miyht
be delivered to the said Abbot within fifteen days from the feast
of St. Martin next ensuing, at the furthest."
There are many other similar records, but the above
seem sufficient for our purpose, as not only do they
suggest that the working dies were all issued from London,
but that the " old and broken " ones were called in and
returned to the Ottos. The last-quoted writ, too, removes
the only objection to this theory, namely, that so many of
the mints used curious mint marks or badges upon their
coins, such as bars, crosses, annulets, trefoils, &c., for
otherwise it would seem strange that such eccentricities
(though each had its purpose) should have been issued
from the London centre. But the expression " with such
impression and circumscription as the Abbot should
appoint/' explains all this, for the grantee of each mint
apparently issued his own directions to the cuneator for
the reverse legends, and for such peculiarities (if any) as
he desired upon his dies. Nor must we forget that the
particular " impression " ordered by the Abbot under this
writ was an escallop shell in one quarter of the reverse
cross, the arms of Beading Abbey. Some coins struck
from these particular dies still remain to us.
We have now only to deal with the position of the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 29
moneyer. From Domesday we gather that some of the
larger mints had six or eight moneyers coming at the
same time, and they are generally divided between the
King, the territorial lord, and the Bishop or Abbot. They
probably all worked together in the same mint, but separate
accounts were kept of their output. Their position, too,
would vary, as they were moneyers of a royal mint or of a
chartered one, for, in the former case, they would be minor
officials of the Crown, and, as such, freemen, but in the
latter they were as Eadmer described them, " men in the
power of their lord " (Vita S. Dun., c. 27, p. 202). But
whatever their position, their office seems to have been
practically hereditary, for in reign after reign we find
the same names handed down in most of the mints ; and
Domesday (under Lincoln) and the Pipe Rolls show
us that, usually, son succeeded father, or nephew uncle.
Probably this would arise from a system of apprentice-
ship, which would naturally favour the moneyer's
own family. Their lot, however, was not a happy
one, for they were subject to the severest penalties
of mutilation and fine that the law could devise, and,
judging from the Rolls, these were not unfrequently
inflicted. Their names are rarely handed down to us,
except on the coins themselves, unless they have suffered
such penalties, therefore one can only infer that they were
very minor officials indeed, and the doctrine of " alter ab
illo micat " is very far from applying to the two names
upon the obverse and reverse of a Saxon or Norman coin,
for there could hardly be a greater contrast. It is true
that Erebald and William his son, moneyers of Carlisle,
farmed the silver mines there, but Carlisle was a royal
mint, and it was in consequence of the discovery of those
mines that the mint was established, and they, no doubt,
yO NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
farmed it also of the Crown. It seems moreover not to
have been unusual for a moneyer to carry on another
business or occupation as well as that of coining, and,
during the intermittent coinages of most of the mints,
this must of course have been necessary.
The purpose of the name and address of the moneyer
upon the coin was, as the Dialogue of the Exchequer tells
us, that his responsibility for the weight and quality of
the coin could be at once established, and this is additional
evidence that the sinking of the dies was not left to him,
as, if dishonestly inclined, his own name would have been
the last he would have stamped upon a base issue. The
same authority, too, clearly indicates that the moneyer
could only strike the money at the place named upon the
reverse. The Pipe Rolls also prove this, for, in every
case of a conviction for false coining, and there are many,
the moneyer can only be identified upon coins bearing the
name of the same town where he was so convicted, and
we know that it was always the Common Law that the
venue lay where the offence was committed. Thus, if
London moneyers, for instance, could have followed the
King, and struck coins at Winchester from their London
dies, we should have convictions recorded under Hamp-
shire against names familiar to us upon the London coins,
and this is never the case.
Much controversy has been devoted to the word ON,
which almost invariably separates the moneyer's name
from that of the mint, on the later Saxon and on Norman
coins. It first came into general use in the reign of
Ethelred II, and as it replaced the contraction MON for
Monetarius, there are some grounds for believing that it
originally represented that word ; but whatever its origin,
it seems quite clear that in the eleventh and twelfth
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 31
centuries it stood for the modern word OF. The proof
of this is, that there are three instances where the word
ON is omitted, and replaced by another form or word,
always meaning OF. The first occurs on certain coins
of the Williams and of Stephen, on which the Latin
genitive case is used in its stead, as, for instance, +SASOTI
STEFANII, +WriICfi GLINTS DERBI. The second upon
many coins of Stephen, and most of those of the Empress
Matilda, and of David, and of William the Lion of Scot-
land, upon which the word ON is replaced by the Norman
DE ; and the third on a unique coin of Stephen of the
ordinary type, but upon which the English word OF itself
is clearly substituted for the usual word ON. But even
to Shakespeare's time, this meaning of the word ON
seems to have survived, thus :
" A thriving gamester has but a poor trade on't."
CHAPTER V.
TREASURE TROVE DEDUCTIONS.
DURING the long reign of Henry I, which extended
from the second of August, 1100, to his death, on the first
of December, 1135, there must have been a vast quantity
of money coined. It was comparatively a reign of peace ;
in fact, so far as England itself was concerned, the country
had probably never before enjoyed thirty years of such
uninterrupted tranquillity as it did in the last three decades
of Henry's rule. The king had succeeded to the immense
treasures accumulated by the greed of Rufus. He
compelled payment of taxes in coin instead of kind.
Silver mines were opened in Cumberland. Guilds were
32 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
being established in many of tbe large towns. Tbe
Flemings were developing their industries in the North
of England and in South Wales. Most of the castles,
cathedrals, and abbeys were still under construction, and,
in fact, everything tended towards the supply and demand
of money and money's worth. Thus, if our coins were not
dependent in quantity on the accident of discovery, those
of Henry I ought to be amongst the commonest in our
cabinets of any of our early English kings.
On the other hand, in the days when men for safety hid
their wealth in the earth, it was when the great waves of
turmoil passed over the land that most treasure was lost,
for their owners were often slain, and their secrets died
with them. Hence, the plenitude of Edward the Con-
fessor's money is in a great measure accounted for by the
troubles of Harold II's nine months' reign, during which
it was still in circulation. Stephen's civil wars have
rendered his money, and Henry's later types, far more
numerous than the general coinage of the latter. And
the same cause has rendered treasure trove of John,
Henry III, Edward II, Edward IV, and Charles I a
plentiful harvest of the spade.
The finds of Henry I's coins, therefore, have been few,
and unfortunately the records of them are still fewer.
The finds that have been recorded will be dealt with more
fully under the descriptions of their tj'pes, but it is
sufficient here to say that they consist of eleven, of which
only five were deposited in Henry's reign. These eleven
(with the exception of one in Italy) are spread over
various counties in the midland and southern portions of
Great Britain, namely :
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 33
Find.
Approxi-
mate Date
of Deposit.
Number
of Types
of
Henry I.
Approximate
Number of
Coins of
Henry I.
Remarks.
Bermonrlsey,
1101
1
5
Also 8 coins of
Surrey
William 1 1 .
Shilling-ton,
1106
2 or
Unrecorded
250 coins of Wil-
Bedfordshire
more
liam II and
Henry I, but
records incom-
plete.
Bari, Italy
4114
2
27
Also many Con-
tinental coins.
Date of deposit
is, in this case,
that of probable
export.
Milford Haven,
1129
1 (?2)
Perhaps 50
Only Henry I.
Pembrokeshire
Battle, Sussex
1132
3
12?
Only 12 are de-
scribed ; there
were probably
more.
Nottingham .
Stephen's
3
20
Also about 1 50
Reign
of Stephen's
reign.
Dartford, Kent
Do.
1
4
Also about 61
of Stephen's
reign.
Watford,
Do.
2
456
Also 649 of Ste-
Hertfordshire
21 half-
phen's reign,
pennies
and an " acci-
dental " half-
penny of Wil-
liam I II.
Linton, near
Do.
1
6
Also about 173
Maidstone,
1 halfpenny
of Stephen's
Kent
reign.
Wallsop,
Wiltshire
Do.
Several
Unrecorded
.Also many of Ste-
phen's reign.
Ashby-Wolds,
Henry II's
1
Do.
About 450 of
Leicestershire
Reign
Henry I, Ste-
phen , and
Henrv II.
From the meagre details given us of the Shillington,
Wallsop, and Ashby-Wolds finds, it is impossible to deduce
what proportion the above hoards contributed to the whole
of the coins of Henry's reign now known, but it must not
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. F
34 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
be forgotten that Mr. Rashleigh tells us, in his admirable
account of the Watford discovery (N. C. 12, p. 143), that
three-fifths of the whole of that find were condemned to
the crucible. Nor is it easy to estimate the number of
Henry's coins known in this country. The subjoined list
will contain descriptions of exactly 1,000 specimens ; but
though duplicate references will be avoided so far as
possible, they must in a measure exist, for, unless the
connecting link is clear, it is safer to insert two similar
readings than to take it for granted that they represent
the same coin. The list, however, is not proffered as
complete, but the total number to-day of our coins of
Henry I probably exceeds 800, and falls short of 1,000.
As the records of the above finds do not include more
than half of Henry's types, we shall be safe in assuming
that there must have been at least twenty such discoveries
altogether, and when we remember that not one of the
recorded finds, although the dates of their discoveries
extend over a hundred years, has added a single fresh type
to those already known to Hunter, Tyssen, Snelling, and
Withy in the last century, we may conclude that we have
now a complete series of the types of Henry's reign.
Moreover, to carry the argument a step further, as, since
that of Watford in 1818, no recorded find has added a
new town to our list of this king's mints (although one or
two, possibly found long before Watford, but unnoticed,
will be presently given), we may also infer that, taking
Henry's coinage as a whole, our cabinets very nearly
contain a general representation of it in its entirety.
It does not, however, follow that, because a certain type
is much commoner to-day than the others, it was originally
more plentifully coined, the quantity in our possession
depending merely upon the accident of discovery. For
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 35
instance, most of the finds of Henry's coins happen to have
been deposited in Stephen's reign, and therefore his two
last types are represented in greater quantity than all the
others put together. But the duration of a type in
circulation may be approximated in this way. If a type
had been long in circulation when its specimens were
deposited, coins from many mints would be mixed together,
and so, if taken in batches of say fifty (the number of
possible mints), the proportion of towns to the number of
coins would be larger, but if it had been only recently
issued, then only the mints in the immediate neighbour-
hood of collection would be represented, no matter how
many coins were deposited ; and so, if we take the whole
of our coins as representing one general find of the reign
deposited at various times, we can form some idea of the
original circulation of the various coinages between the
limits of legal tender.
Hitherto numismatists have assumed that because one
type bore a close or general similarity to another, the two
were issued successively, but this was exactly the object
which the Norman authorities at certain intervals had
most carefully to avoid. When few but the clergy could
either read or write, how were the people to draw the line
of demarcation between what was current coin and what
was obsolete, save by such a difference in the device as
could be clearly described by public proclamation ?
The most obvious difference would be obtained by altering
the position of the king's head into profile. Bearing in
mind, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary that the
people should be able to understand at a glance what coins
were from time to time called in, and what were still a
legal tender, the following simple theory or rule at once
suggests itself as meeting the case viz : " The issue of a
36
NUMISMATIC CHROMCLE.
profile type limited the legal tender or ' present money '
' solos usuales et instantis monetae legitimos denarios '
as the ' Dialogue of the Exchequer ' terms it, to those types
only which had been issued since the previous profile type."
Now to prove the theory. It follows as a matter of course
that, if the theory be correct, no two profile types ought
to appear in any one find, for the issue of the later profile
type invalidates the currency of the earlier, but it is
immaterial how many front-faced types appear, for they
represent the intermediate and sanctioned currency. We
will therefore glance at the whole of the Norman finds,
which have been sufficiently recorded for this purpose.
It must, however, be remembered that as the tax of
monctagium was only introduced after the Conquest, no
such regulation may have existed in Saxon times.
Find.
Number of Coins.
Types.
Dimchurch .
100? Norman
1 profile only.
York . . .
200? Norman
1 profile, 1 front face.
London City
5 Norman
2 front face only.
Beaworth
10,000 (about)
1 profile, 3 front face.
Tamworth .
300
1 profile, 3 front face.
Bermondsey
13
3 front face only.
Shillington .
250
1 profile, 3 front face (?)
Bari . . .
27
2 front face only.
Milford Haven
50?
1 profile, (?) 1 front face.
Battle . .
12?
1 profile, 2 front face.
Nottingham .
170 (about)
1 profile, 3 front face.
Dartford .
65
1 profile, 1 front face.
Watford . .
1,150
1 profile, 2 front face.
Linton . .
180
1 profile, 2 front face.
In the Beaworth and Dartford cases, it is true that
there are two profile types, but they are only varieties of
reverse, or what are called " mules," as in both instances
the obverse types are identical.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 37
Thus the coincidence is far too remarkable to admit of
any other explanation than some such purpose as the one
suggested, for we have more than twelve thousand coins
discovered in fourteen different finds, and in no case is
there more than a single profile type ! If the reader
will refer to Hawkins' Silver Coins of England, he will
find that there are about thirty-five distinct regal types
in the Norman series, and the proportion of profile to
front- faced obverses (after discarding varieties of reverse
only) is as 10 to 25, or one to two and a-half ; and this is
precisely the average of the same proportion in the above
list of finds. It may also be remarked that, with the
abolition of frequent changes in the legal tender, on
Henry II's accession, the profile types being therefore
no longer required entirely disappeared from our English
coinage until three centuries later, when Henry YII
remodelled the general currency by the introduction of
the shilling, and struck it in profile.
When the types of Henry's reign are described it will
be noticed that, in one instance, two profile types come
together, or rather, one succeeds the other ; but it was on
the occasion of the great Inquisition of the Moneyers in
1125 when, in consequence of the general debasement of
the money, a new coinage was suddenly ordered. There-
fore, as this occurred during the issue of a profile type, the
second type also bore the King's head in profile, and
thus again invalidated all money issued up to its own
date, and constituted itself the commencement of an
entirely new currency, for, to quote the words of Wen-
dover, " at that time there was a new coinage in England."
Is not this the explanation of the modern custom of every
sovereign's head being reversed in position to that of his
predecessor's ? Charles II originated it to show his
38 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
contempt for Cromwell so it is said, and perhaps some
tradition of the power of "estoppel" of a distinctive
profile type still lingered in men's minds in those days.
Before proceeding to the descriptions of the coins
themselves a grateful acknowledgment is due to those who
have so kindly supplied particulars of the specimens in
their possession. Their names will appear in every case,
and from their information a much more complete list of
Henry I's coins has been furnished than otherwise would
have been possible. The authorities of the public museums
in London, Glasgow, Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham, and
Worcester, for instance, have contributed particulars and
casts of several hundred specimens, and Mr. L. A.
Lawrence, whose great interest in this subject is so well
known, has rendered generous assistance in every branch
of this work.
CHAPTER VI.
THE TYPES.
The Evolution of Design.
WE have seen that there were three hereditary designers
of the coinage during this long reign, and it is only to
be expected that there would be a considerable improve-
ment or modernization between the work of the first
and of the last, and that each would show some peculiari-
ties.
Otto auri/aber is mentioned more than once in Domes-
day, and had held office since the days of the Conqueror.
His work is easy to distinguish, for he carries forward
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 39
the identical form of letters used upon William IT's
coins, viz. :
Two uprights unjoined and often without the cross-
bar, thus, 1 1 for A, and the same uprights for V.
The square or Roman H, E, and C (though usually
6) for H,C and G. H often representing N,M or H,
and being sometimes reversed as "H.
The Saxon D for T H and P for W.
I E for M and letters often joined together in mono-
gram as IE, N), &c.
He uses either HENEIEVS (often blundered) or
HENEI and sometimes EEX ANG for the King's
name and title, but never HENEIE.
His favourite ornament is the annulet.
He died in 1101, and was succeeded by his son (see
P- 47).
Otho Fitz Otto introduces several changes.
H is soon entirely discarded for I\, and D presently
becomes in nearly all cases simply T.
C is finally replaced by 6.
A,N,M, 2E assume their modern forms, and sometimes
C and G appear on his later types.
He uses HENEI at first, but soon changes to IiENEI,
IiENEIE and fiENEIEVS for the King's name.
Under him two pellets in the form of a colon are
gradually introduced to separate the different
words a custom still in evidence upon our coinage
of to-day.
His designs are profuse with ornaments, until in his
later types he seems to aim at filling up every
particle of field with small annulets, stars, quatre-
foils, &c.
He probably died about 1120.
40 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
His son, William Fitz Otho, appears to have been too
young to immediately succeed him, and between 1120 and
1125 we note the hand of a very inferior designer, who,
whilst retaining his predecessor's letters (with the addition
of JR), ornaments, and colons of division, produces work of
so rude and uncertain a character that two dies are rarely
alike (see p. 74).
He also reverts to the old custom of using REX ANG
for the title.
He was probably removed at the Inquisition of
Christmas, 1125.
In 1126 there is a great improvement in the dies.
William Fitz Otho is now serving his apprenticeship
under someone who, judging from his work, must have
been the best numismatic artist England had until the
time of Henry VII (see p. 87).
The modern W is introduced on some of his coins.
Also " Th," although the Saxon D is still occasionally
retained.
He attempts a portrait.
He invariably uses riENEIEVS and the colons of
division.
With the exception of a star he dispenses with
ornaments.
In 1130 the "Pipe Boll " tells us that William Fitz
Otho paid certain fees that he might no longer have
a master over him. He, therefore, has now completed
his apprenticeship and succeeds to his hereditary office
(see p. 87).
He discards the Saxon D entirely, and with the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 41
exception of upon one or two " irregular " coins of
Stephen it never again appears upon our coinage.
He invariably uses the colons of division.
Often the modern W and sometimes the round C appear.
He dispenses with all ornaments.
He uses riENRI, RENRIE, IiENRIEV or fiENKIEVS.
REFERENCES.
As every English numismatist is, or ought to be, con-
versant with Mr. Kenyon's edition of "Hawkins' Silrcr
Coins of England, 1887," all references to the types will in
future be given to the numbers of his illustrations, and
where one is not there represented, by reference to the
number of the type in his letterpress. In the latter case,
as a distinction, such number will be given in Roman
numerals. Although Mr. Hawkins assigns twenty types
to this reign, there are in effect but fifteen which, for
reasons dealt with at the end of this chapter, can rightly
be appropriated to it, and, although it is usually thought
otherwise, a reference to his letterpress under Type XI.
will prove that he does not attempt to describe them in
their order of issue.
For convenience of reference, the " mule " varieties, i.e.
coins struck from the obverse die of one type and the
reverse die of another, will be described under the obverse
type ; but it is obvious that if the reverse die is the later
one, the coin must have been issued after its introduction.
As the first half of this treatise goes to press before the
material for the second portion is completed, the list of
mints and number of specimens given under each Type
may subsequently be subject to some correction.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. G
42
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
TYPE I.
11001102.
Fig. A.
HAWKINS, 251.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, i., 15 ; Sup. ii.,2; Snell-
ing, i., 13; Withy and Ryall, ii., 1-5; Num. Chron., 1881,
iii., 1, and 1893, xii., 251 ; Montagu Catalogue, ii., 271, v., 95.
Olv. Legend.
* HENRI REX AN
R ANC
REX NL
REX NL
* HENRI REX N
I.HNRI REX KG
frHNRI REX NI
frHNRI REX
[*H]EHH REX
^ HENRI RIEX
* HENRI REX
Crowned bust, facing, an annulet on either side of the
head, within an inner circle springing from the
shoulders.
Rev. Cross fleury, annulet in centre ; in each angle, three
pellets in form of a trefoil inwards, with two stalks
curving outwards to the inner circle. All within
an inner circle. [PI. II., Nos. 15.]
Mints 20.
REX I
I.HENRIEVS RE
^.HNRIEYS REX
4.HNRILVS RE
^.HNRIEVS REI
^.HNRIEVS RI
frlHRIESNIS REX
^.HNRIIEE
^.HNREEX NI
J.HNR REEX NI
Canterbury
Chester or
Lewes
Dover
Hastings
Ipswich
Lewes
Lincoln
London
Norwich
Oxford
Rochester
Salisbury
Southwark
Stamford
Taunton (?)
Thetford
Wallingford
Wareham or
Warwick
Winchester
York
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 43
Hawkins gives Dorchester, Leicester, Newark, and
St. Edmundsbury ; but the first is a Dover coin, the
second a Chester or Lewes, the third a London, and the
fourth a Lewes coin.
Henry is in England during the whole period of 1100
and 1102. Unless otherwise stated the types are assumed
to commence and close with the Exchequer year, i.e., at
Michaelmas.
Number of specimens noted. 70, or allowing for
probable duplicate references, say 55. Varieties, 3.
Finds containing this type. Bermondsey and Not-
tingham (a single, probably accidental, example).
Weight and quality. 20 to 22^ grains of good
silver.
Form of letters. II = A. E = C. C and 6 = G.
H = H. H, M and N = M. H, N and K = N. P =
W. II = V. D=TH. IE=^], and letters are
often joined together as 1<E, Kj, N).
That this is the first type of the reign cannot be
doubted, for it bears too close a resemblance in lettering
and design to the coins of Ruf us to be separated from them.
Also, it was the only type of Henry I which appeared in
the Bermondsey find (Num. Cliron. viii. 170), which
contained five specimens of it, the remaining coins being
of three types of William II. This hoard, therefore, must
have been deposited very early in the reign, and before
any other type was current. But there are other reasons
for the position of this type as the first. The Saxon
letters H, J7 and D are still invariably retained, and it is
the only type of the reign issued before it became cus-
tomary to join the two uprights 1 1 representing A or V at
the head or foot, and on which the square G appears. Also
it is one of only two types issued prior to the intro-
44 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
duction of the form " f\," which was shortly to become so
universal in place of the old H.
The spelling, too, of the King's name tells its own tale.
England had never seen the name " Henry " upon her
coins either as King or even moneyer, and naturally at
first Otto and his die-sinkers blundered over its Latin
form. In evidence of this are the many variations and
errors by which it is represented in the above list, and
yet nothing of the sort appears on any other type.
Exactly the same difficulty occurred with King Stephen's
name when it was introduced, for his first type discloses
every variation in spelling, but his subsequent types none.
Perhaps the spelling of the Conqueror's name will similarly
disclose his earliest coinage.
The design of the great seal is necessarily one of the
first undertakings upon a King's accession. Henry's
bore the legend HENEICVS DEI GEATIA EEX
ANGLOEVM. (See Plate I). It was probably Otto's
work also and, subject to the then usual omission of
DEI GEATIA, we notice a very close imitation of its
inscription upon the coins of this type, and yet (with the
exceptions of one or two varieties of the next two types)
for many years afterwards no attempt is made at any form
of the title ANGLORVM, nor does the name Henricus in
full again appear upon any type for nearly a dozen years.
This type also bears a much larger proportion of the
names of those moneyers who struck the Conqueror's coins
in the Beaworth hoard, deposited more than a dozen years
before, than any other type of Henry's reign. Also upon it
are found all the older forms of the moneyers' and mints'
names, and altogether its coins are clearly earlier in every
respect than those of any of the other types.
The coins are of good silver, and some even attain the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 45
full weight, viz. 22| grains, but no doubt Henry's enact-
ment in his Coronation Charter, that " if anyone shall be
taken, either money er or other, with false money, let justice
be done upon him according to the law," was still fresh
in men's minds.
As Henry was in England during the whole period of
the issue of this type, 1100 1102, most of his barons
would be here also especially at his Coronation, which
we know many of them came over specially from Nor-
mandy to attend. Thus the large number of twenty mints
represented upon the coins of this type is accounted for
by the fact that the grantees of the chartered mints were in
England, and therefore enabled to exercise their privileges
at this time.
Varieties (A) In his account of the Bermondsey find, Mr.
Hawkins mentions a coin "very similar
to type 251, but without the annulets
over the shoulders."
(B) A London coin in the British Museum has
what appears to be an eight-shaped orna-
ment in place of one of the annulets on
the obverse, but it is probably an accident
of striking.
(C) There is a " mule " coin described under the
next type 254 with obverse of that and
reverse of this type.
TYPE II.
11021104.
Fig. B.
HAWKINS, 254.
46 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, Sup., ii., 3, and part ii.,
i, 4 ; Num. Chron., 1893, xii., 254.
Obv. Legend. * HENRI EEX * HENRI RI
* HENRI RE * HENRI REI
* HENRI R * HENRI RIEX
Crowned bust in profile to left, before a sceptre ; no
inner circle. Sometimes a tiny annulet upon the
right shoulder.
R ev . Cross fleury or composed of four trefoils, annulet or
sometimes a pellet in the centre ; within an inner
circle. [PL II., Nos. 6-9.]
Mints 18.
Bristol Lincoln Southwark
Canterbury London Stamford
Exeter Norwich Thetford
Hastings Salisbury York
Leicester
Henry is in England for about eighteen months
between 1102 and 1104.
Number of specimens noted. 32, or, allowing for
possible duplicate references, say 28. Varieties. 1.
Finds. None recorded of this type.
Weight and quality. 18 to 19 grains, debased metal.
Form of letters. Precisely similar to the previous
type, save that the A and V are rarely disjointed.
It will be noticed that there is a marked difference
between the style of this type and that of its predecessor.
It is much smaller in diameter, and no longer bears the
characteristic features of the coins of Rufus. The inner
circle which had invariably appeared upon the obverse
and reverse of our money for a quarter of a century in
fact during the whole term of office of Otto unrifaber is
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 47
now for a time discontinued upon the obverse, and there
is a temporary retrogression in the general art displayed,
only to be explained by the introduction of the hand of a
new designer. In the British Museum there is an ancient
MS. copy of a Charter by Henry I appointing Otho Fitz
Otto to the office of aurifaber in succession to his father, but
it is undated (Chartae Antiques Lond. Y. 17). As, however,
it is addressed to Maurice, Bishop of London, and Hugh
de Bocland, witnessed by Robert, Earl of Mellent, William
de Warren and William de Albini, and granted at
Arundel, its date must be Midsummer, 1101, and this type
is therefore the first designed by the new aurifaber. The
date of the Charter is deduced as follows : Maurice,
Bishop of London, died in 1107 ; Robert de Mellent and
William de Warren were, prior to 1107, only in England
at the same time from August, 1100, to September, 1101
(see Lewes and Leicester) ; and Henry, Robert de Mellent,
and William de Warren were together in the neighbour-
hood of Arundel at Midsummer, 1101 ; immediately after
which de Warren deserted Henry's cause, and was sub-
sequently banished.
As this is the only other type upon which the old form
" H " instead of " I\ " invariably appears, there can be little
doubt that it is the second of the reign. It will be
noticed that the curious spellings El, EEI and EIEX
all appear on this type as on the previous one, and yet
they never occur again. The lettering, too, is almost
identical, and the annulet ornament is retained upon the
reverse. The fact that all these coins read HENEI
suggests that that form was the latest in use on the dies
of the previous type, if, indeed, it was not introduced in
1101 by Otho Fitz Otto upon his appointment. Finally
the " mule " of obverse of this type and reverse of the last
48 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
(presently described under " varieties ") connects the two,
and should conclusively prove the succession. The coins,
though much smaller in diameter than usual, are thicker.
The silver of most is obviously debased, and the average
weight only nineteen grains. This is the commencement
of the first debasement of the coinage, which culminated
in the drastic proclamation of 1108 previously referred to.
Perhaps one of the causes of this was the impoverished
condition of the country owing to the payment of 3,000
marks 480,000 pennies ! (or 3,000 pounds according to
Ordericus) to Robert of Normandy in 1 102 and 1103 under
the 1101 treaty, for Wendover records that it was paid
for two years. This debasement was soon discovered, for
Brompton, Knyghton and Hemingford state that Henry,
at the Christmas Court of 1103, found it necessary to
increase the punishment of the moneyer for debasing the
coinage by adding that of loss of sight and mutilation ;
in other words, he made it treason to tamper with the
King's money. The penalty, under Athelstan's law,
having hitherto been
" let the hand be struck off with which he wrought that offence
and be set up on the money smithy " (Kenyon).
Variety (A) The Whitbourn Catalogue contained a coin
described as " Penny, bust to left, with
sceptre; reverse Hawkins, 251, of the
London mint, unique." This is a "mule"
of obverse of this and reverse of the
previous type.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 49
TYPE III.
11041106.
Fig. C.
HAWKINS, 253.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, Sup., i., 7 ; Snelling, i.,
15; Withy and Ryall, ii., 11 and 13; Warne's History of
Dorset, i., 15 ; Num. Chron., 1893, xii., 253.
Obv. Legend.
(A) .{.HENRI REX EN * HENRI REX
* HENRI RE * HENRI RXI
^HIENRI R
(B) 4-rxENRI REX Ti *I\ENRI REX E
.frriENRI RE
Crowned bust facing, sometimes an annulet on the
shoulder ; no sceptre or inner circle.
Rev. PAX across the field and between two lines ; above
and below, two annulets ; all within an inner circle.
On many the lines are duplicated. [PL II., Nos.
1014.]
Mints 16.
Bristol
Norwich
Wareham or
Canterbury
Salisbury
Warwick
Colchester
Stamford
Wilton
Hastings
Sudbury
Winchester
Ipswich
Thetford
York
London
Taunton or Tamworth ?
The " BISES" coin queried by Hawkins is assigned
to Bristol. The specimen of this type given by
him to Lincoln is removed to London.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. H
50 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Henry is in England for about twelve months between
1104 and 1106.
Number of specimens noted. 36, or allowing for
possible duplicate references, say 30.
Finds. None recorded.
Weight and quality. 19 to 20 grains, usually of fine
silver.
Form of letters. On many of the coins the later " I\ "
is now first introduced. A, M, N, and T usually
assume these forms, though the diphthong JE is
still represented by I E, and the other letters re-
main unaltered.
As about half these coins commence the King's name
with the old H, and the remainder with the later or
Lombardic h, the change probably occurred in the
middle of the issue, viz., in 1105.
Under the two previous types some ninety coins have
been referred to, every one of which bears the old form.
H. After this type many hundreds will be described,
and yet not one of them has on the obverse any other form
than the Lombardic " h." (The H in the engraving,
Ruding, Supp. ii., 11, 13, type 258, when compared with
the coin proving to be an error for h.) Nothing could
be more drastic than the abolition of the old H, and
nothing can therefore be more convincing that this must
be the third type of the reign.
There is another innovation almost as important.
Hitherto on Saxon and Norman coins there has not been
any attempt at a separation of the words forming the
legends, but now on one or two of these coins, probably
the latest issued, two pellets in the form of a colon are
used after the moneyer's name, but in no case do they
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 51
appear between each word, as was so soon to become cus-
tomary. Oddly enough, in each case they appear to
follow a contraction, as they do on coins of to-day.
Having now ascertained the approximate date (1104-6)
of this type, we are one step nearer the solution of the
oft-debated problem of the meaning of the word PAX on
this, and in one form or another upon certain types of
every preceding reign to that of Canute ; but this is its
last appearance. When the coinage of the two Williams
comes to be treated similarly to that of this reign, and
the date of the well-known PAXS types ascertained,
the explanation, if any, should at once be apparent, but
pending that only surmise can still be offered. The
simpler the foundation the stronger the hypothesis, and
so PAX must be assumed to mean PEACE, or a Treaty
of Peace. It has therefore often been suggested that,
in this instance, it refers to Henry's treaty with Robert
of Normandy late in the summer of 1101. That date would
tally very well with the issue of the second type (254) in
1102, but not with this, which was not issued until 1104.
Moreover, that treaty was a humiliating one to Henry,
for under it he had to pay tribute to Normandy, and it
is more than doubtful whether he ever intended to keep
it. But we are told that, after the suppression of Robert
de Beleme's rebellion :
" In 1103, Robert Duke of Normandy came over to England,
and, by the King's craftiness, was induced for various reasons
to release him from his obligations to pay the tribute of 3,000
marks." (Huntingdon, cf. Saxon Chronicle, &c.)
This confirms the original treaty, but removes from it
all that was objectionable from Henry's point of view,
for it recognises his independent title to the throne.
Prior to this, his right had only been that of possession
52
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
and election, a right actually weakened by the treaty of
1101, for by it he obviously acknowledged Robert's prior
claims. But now, by whatever means the new treaty was
obtained, and it savoured of personal intimidation, he
is acknowledged an independent sovereign, freed from
tribute or homage to Robert. Thus, though short-lived
as both treaties afterwards proved to be, Henry would
attach the utmost importance to them at the time, and
when a few months afterwards, in 1104, a new type was
issued, they would be still foremost in his mind. Not only
did he thus commemorate the treaties upon his coins, but
he similarly dated his charters by them, as, for instance,
his charter to Eudo Dapifer, " in primo Natali post con-
cordiam Roberti Comitis fratris mei de me et de illo " (see
Colchester, p. 160).
Varieties. None.
TYPE IV.
11061108.
HAWKINS, 252.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, Sup., i., 9 ; Snelling, i.,
14; Gentleman's Magazine, 1800, p. 817; Num. Chron., 1893,
zii., 252.
Obv. Legend. ifrfiENRI BEX ^.riENEI EE
Crowned bust facing, usually an annulet on the left
shoulder, and one on each of the three points of the
crown. No inner circle.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 53
Eev. Treasure composed of four convex curves and four
pyramids outwards surmounted by annulets, alter-
nate. In the centre, an annulet usually encircling
a pellet. All within an inner circle. [PL III.,
Nos. 13.]
Mints 14.
Exeter
Hastings
Ipswich
Leicester
Lincoln
London Stamford (?)
Norwich Thetford
St. Edmundsbury Winchester
Southampton York
Southwark
The coins reading " SAN " are attributed to St. Ed-
mundsbury.
Henry is in England for about fifteen months between
1106 and 1108.
Number of specimens noted. 52, or allowing for
probable duplicate references, say 45. Varieties.
None.
Finds. Shillington.
Weight and quality. 20 grains, but some, 22. The
quality varies greatly, a few being apparently of
good silver, but most are very base.
Form of letters. I E still represents JE, but " I\ "
now invariably appears, and the Saxon D is usually
represented by T alone. The colons or pellets of
division appear in one or two instances as separating
the three words on the reverse, and in one instance
upon the obverse, Fig. D.
Having passed through the transition stage of the
letter H to fr, we commence that of the D. This old
Saxon letter struggled long for existence, and is even
found on one or two curious coins of Stephen. It is, how-
ever, in this type that we find it first superseded. But
the change was not a happy one, for the H was entirely
54 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
dropped for a time, and the TH represented by T alone.
1'or instance, Thetford has always hitherto been written
DETF, &c., but now it becomes TETEF, &c. This is the
last type on which we shall find IE used for M t as in
IELFPINE for ^LFPINE ; in fact, after this diphthongs
rarely appear.
It is very unfortunate that we have so incomplete an
account of the Shillington, Bedfordshire, hoard of 1871,
but the late Mr. Allen, who contributed the few parti-
culars we have of it (Num. Chron. N.S. xi., 227), was only
able to inspect " a few of these coins." Of those he saw,
" the most numerous were of William II, Hawkins type
250 ; there were others of the Williams of 244 and 246, and
one of the 'PAXS' type." Of Henry I he says :" there
were scattered amongst the mass a few imperfectly struck
coins, all with one exception of type 252." There was
evidently one other type at least of the reign, and there-
fore it would not be safe to infer that all the three
previously described types were not represented in it, the
more so as it would seem that the few coins seen by Mr.
Allen were only " perhaps a third " of some secured by a
Mr. Weston, for " the bulk went elsewhere."
The coins we have of this type are, with few excep-
tions, of decidedly base metal, and when we compare them
with the standard coins of the two Williams, we can well
understand the necessity for Henry's proclamation of
1108, viz :
" Henry, King of the English, for the purpose of protection,
enacted a law, that if any one should be detected in the act of
theft or larceny he should be hanged. He also enacted that
debased and false coins should be guarded against with such
strictness, that whoever should be detected coining base money
should lose his eyes and suffer mutilation, without any ransom ;
aud, inasmuch as very frequently, while pennies were being
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OK HENRY I. 55
selected ('eligebantur'} they were bent or broken and then
rejected, he ordered that no penny or 'half-penny (obol), which
he also ordered to be made of a round form, or even farthing,
if it were round " (integer perfect, i.e., round, as opposed to a
cut coin), " should be rejected. From this provision much
good resulted to the whole Kingdom, because the King thus
exerted himself in secular matters to relieve the troubles of the
land." (Hoveden, cf. Florence of Worcester and S. of Durham.)
The reference to the money being bent or broken as a
test of the quality during circulation, connects this passage
with one in William of Malmesbury inserted under his
description of the character of Henry I, which has hitherto
been deemed incomprehensible. It is :
" When he heard that broken money, although of good
silver, was not accepted by the Merchants, he ordered that all
should be broken ('frangi ') or snicked (' incidi ')."
To order the coin to be broken would, of course, be
ridiculous, but " frangi vel incidi " may also mean " bent
or snicked," and if collectors will refer to their coins of
this type they will discover that all, or nearly all for Sir
John Evans has an exception have a curious little cut
or snick through the edge, extending from an eigh'th to a
quarter of an inch into the coin, the edges being generally
bent so as to show the quality of metal. This is without
doubt the explanation of the passage. No previous
English type shows anything of the kind, although a
somewhat similar test was known to the Greeks, from
whom perhaps the " learned " Henry borrowed tbe idea.
But it is introduced now, and is found in most of the coins
of the eight succeeding types until the great Inquisition
of the Moneyers in 1125, when it became no longer
necessary owing to the great improvement in the coinage.
On the other hand, as the snick does not occur on any of
the three preceding types of this reign, it is an additional
56
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
factor in determining the order of succession, for they
must have preceded its invention.
Mr. L. A. Lawrence has the coin engraved, Ruding,
Sup., ii., ii., 3, but the engraving is altogether wrong. It
should be
Fig. E.
Olv. .frfiENRI REX.
The ordinary obverse of this type.
Rev.
ONEBO.
Of the usual type, but the sides of the pyramids are
drawn together into parallel lines, and there are
traces of a possible annulet within one of the convex
curves. See under "York." Sir John Evans calls
attention to the fact that this coin is correctly en-
graved in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1800, p. 817.
Another, with a similar reverse design, so far as the parallel
lines are concerned, is in the British Museum.
TYPE V.
11081110.
Fig. F.
HAWKINS, 256.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 57
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, i., 14 ; Snelling, i., 20 ;
Withy and Eyall, ii., 16 ; Num. Chron:, x., p. 21, 9, and 1893,
xii., 256.
Obv. Legend. ^.IiENEI EEX.
Crowned bust in profile to left ; before, a sceptre ;
within an inner circle springing from the shoulders.
Rev. Cross potent, pierced ; an annulet in each angle ; all
within an inner circle. [PL III., Nos. 4 6.]
Mints 4.
Southwark Winchester
Thetford York (?)
The coin queried by Hawkins to Canterbury is of
Thetford.
Henry is in England for about fifteen months between
1108 and 1110.
Number of specimens noted. 6, but representing,
perhaps, only 5 coins.
Finds. None recorded.
Weight and quality. 19 to 20 grains of good silver.
Form of letters. The diphthong I E for 2E. has now
disappeared, otherwise the lettering is precisely as
the last. The colons usually separate the words
of the reverse legend (only), and on Fig. F are
represented by three pellets.
This is the latest type upon which the obverse legend
if\ENEI EEX alone appears. After the proclamation
of 1108, one would naturally expect the immediate issue
of a profile type such as this is, for a fresh coinage was
obviously required, and there is a marked improvement in
the quality of the silver (see page 35). From 1108
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. I
58
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
to 1120 Henry and his Barons, the grantees of the minor
mints, were almost continuously resident in Normandy,
and therefore during that period we have but few coins
issued from the chartered mints.
Varieties. None.
TYPE VI.
11101112.
rig. a.
HAWKINS, 257.
Examples also illustrated. Ending, Sup., i., i., 8, and Sup.,
ii., ii., 4; Snelling, i., 21; Speed's Chronicle, 1611, p. 434;
Num. Chron., 1893, xii., 257.
Obv. Legend.
EEX
EEE
EEX
EEX
EE:
EE
Crowned bust facing, sceptre to left ; no inner circle.
Or, of neater work, within an inner circle springing
from the shoulders. Sometimes a small annulet
upon the left shoulder.
Rev. A large quatrefoil ornamented with a pellet at each
angle ; annulet in the centre and within each foil.
All within an inner circle. [PI. III., Nos. 7 10.]
Mints 5.
Lincoln
London
Norwich
Southwark
Winchester
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 59
Hawkins gives York, but was misled by the engraving
in Ruding, cf. Mr. L. A. Lawrence's coin, Fig. E.
Henry is in England for about ten months, between
1110 and 1112.
Number of specimens noted. 11, or, allowing for pos-
sible duplicate references, say 9 ; of which, how-
ever, 3 are in the Bari Museum, Italy. Varieties 1.
Finds. Bari, Italy. Wallsop, near Salisbury.
Weight and quality. 20| grains of fine silver.
Form of letters. As the last, except that the N is
sometimes retrograde "PI, and letters are often in
monogram.
The colons now (with the exception of one or perhaps
two instances in the two previous types) first appear
in the obverse legend.
With this type commences the transition period from
fc PiENEI EEX to the subsequently more popular { IxENEIE
EEX, of which latter form there have been no previous
examples, but iflxENEI EEX is still continued on a few of
the coins of nearly every type until the year 1125.
Also upon this type is introduced the custom of placing
occasional ornaments in the field of the obverse, as, for
instance, on some of the coins a small annulet over the left,
and a rosette of pellets, or knot, over the right shoulder.
Sir John Evans discovered three of these coins in the
Bari Museum, Italy, in which neighbourhood they had
been found with several of the next type, 267, and so
under that heading the find will be commented upon.
Variety (A) Sheriff Mackenzie, of Sutherland, N.B., has a
unique " mule " of obverse of this type and
reverse of the next, 267. (See Fig. H.)
60
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Fig. H.
Obv. .frriENKI EEX.
Similar to the second described class of this type.
Comp. Snelliug, i., 21 ; EudiDg, Sup., i., i., 8.
Rev. ^.PVLPPINE ON LVN.
Cross potent voided and pierced ; in each angle a
trefoil inwards, springing from an inner circle, as
the next type, 267.
If it should be preferred that this is a variety, without
the star, of the next type, 267, similar to PL IV., No. 4,
then the coin engraved in Speed, Snelling, and Ruding,
must take its place as the " mule " connecting the two
types, for its obverse is similar to Fig. H, but its reverse
is clearly of this type.
TYPE VII.
11121114.
Fig. I.
HAWKINS, 267.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, Sup., ii., i., 6: Num.
Chron., 1893, xii., 267.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 61
EEX
EEX
EEX
EEX
Obv. Legend.
Crowned bust facing, sceptre surmounted by a cross
to left ; usually a star in the field to right ; three
small annulets on the points of the crown, and some-
times two above and one on either side of it ; all
within an inner circle springing from the shoulders.
Rev. Cross potent voided and pierced ; in each angle a
trefoil inwards, springing from an inner circle.
Sometimes the stalk of the trefoil is represented
by a loop. [PI. IV., NOS. 14.]
Mints 11.
Canterbury
Chichester
Exeter
London
Norwich
Sudbury
Thetford
Wallingford
Wareham or
Warwick
Wilton
Winchester
The coin queried by Hawkins to Bedford is here
assigned to Thetford.
Henry is in England for about twelve months between
1112 and 1114.
Number of specimens noted. 29, of which, however,
22 are in the Bari Museum, Italy. Varieties 4.
Finds. Bari, Italy.
Weight and quality. Some 21 j grains of fine silver,
and others 17 of base metal.
Form of letters. As the last, but the letters are
rarely in monogram. Colons are now plentiful
on obverse and reverse. On one coin, that of
"EAVFVS" of London, the custom of Latinizing
the moneyer's name is introduced (although a
single instance of this had already occurred on
type 253).
We have ample evidence that this type was next in
succession to 257, for, in addition to Sheriff Mackenzie's
62 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
interesting " mule " connecting the two types, we have the
important discovery by Sir John Evans of three specimens
of type 257 and twenty-four of this type in the Bari
Museum, Italy. He tells us (Num. Chron., 1892, p. 83) that
they formed part of a large hoard of Continental coins
then recently discovered in that neighbourhood, and that
they were the only English types in it. We have there-
fore the curious fact that these two types alone found
their way to Italy together, and so the inference is that
they had been exported from England at the same time.
The presence of .these English coins in the Bari hoard
is interesting. On the 7th of January, 1114, Henry gave
his daughter Matilda in marriage to Henry Y, Emperor
of the Romans. With her he paid a dowry of 45,000,
which he had been collecting since 1110 (Saxon Chronicle)
the very period of the issue of these two types, 1110-
1114 "taking three shillings, as is the custom of the
English Kings, from every hide of land throughout Eng-
land " (Wendover). In 1116 the Emperor Henry V
invaded Italy, and was for a time encamped on the plains
of Bari. Thus, there is little doubt that Sir John ex-
amined some of the actual coins paid as the dowry of the
Empress Matilda.
This may be termed the second of the ornament types ;
on the last an occasional annulet, rosette, or knot, was
introduced, but now there is a profusion of annulets, and
sometimes a star in the field of the obverse. On one or
two, also, a quatrefoil is introduced at the end of the ob-
verse legend (Hawkins' Plates, 267, and Num. Chron.,
1893, xii, 267). There is some variation, too, in the form
of the sceptre, as will be seen in the varieties described
at the end of this type.
The star appears upon some of these coins only, but
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 63
others are plain (see Plate IY, No. 4, Euding, Sup. ii., i, 6,
and Num. Chron., 1892, p. 85) ; thus it was not an essential
part of the design. This was the first type engraved after
1110, and in that year the Saxon Chronicle tells us :
" In the month of June there appeared a star in the north-
east, and its light stood before it to the south-west, and it was
seen .thus for many nights, and ever as the night advanced it
mounted upwards and was seen going off to the north-east."
There is only one other type in the English series upon
which an occasional star appears on some of its coins and
not on the others. It is 248 of Rufus, and if the position
assigned to this type by Hawkins, viz., the last but
one of his reign, is correct, the years of its issue would
include 1097. Under that year the Saxon Chronicle
records, in almost identical language :
" Then at Michaelmas, on the 4th before the Nones of October,
an uncommon star appeared shining in the evening and soon
going down ; it was seen in the south-west, and the light which
streamed from it seemed very long shining towards the south-
east, and it appeared after this manner nearly all the week."
There is nothing improbable in connecting the appear-
ance of a comet and the representation of it upon the coin-
age. It occurs on Roman coins with the head of Julius
Caesar, and when we remember how the great comet of 1066
was believed to have foreshadowed the conquest of Eng-
land, how another appeared before the victory of Tinche-
brai, and how great were the superstitions always attached
to astronomical phenomena in mediaeval times, we can
well understand the popularity of the star as a favourite
ornament on the coinage and seals of the Norman kings,
although it never appears on the Saxon coinage. Take
an example from later times. On the morn of Ed-
ward IV's first victory, that of Mortimer's Cross, three
suns appeared by refraction in the heavens. These he
64 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
forthwith adopted as his badge, and when he came to
the throne the sun thus became the commonest mint-
mark upon his coins.
Varieties (A) The "mule" of obverse 257 and reverse of
this type has already been described under
the last.
(B) Mr. L. A. Lawrence has a coin of this type of
London upon which the sceptre is syir-
mounted by a quatrefoil instead of a
cross. PL IV. No. 1.
(C) Sir John Evans has one without the star in the
field, upon which the shaft of the ordinary
sceptre is floriated, and on the reverse the
usual trefoils in the angles of the cross
have almost developed into quatrefoils, as
Ruding, Sup., ii., 1, 6 (now in the Hun-
terian Museum). PI. IV. No. 4.
(D) The London coin in the British Museum illus-
trated in Hawkins 267, and Num. Chron.,
1893, xii., 267, has a quatrefoil at the
end of the obverse legend.
(E) Messrs. Spink recently possessed the well-
known " mule " of obverse of this type and
reverse of the next, 266. (See Fig. J.)
Fig. J.
#&. *I\ENEIE : REX.
The ordinary obverse of this type with the star, and
the shaft of the sceptre floriated as on Sir John
Evans' variety.
Rev. .frSPERhAVOT : ON : PAR.
Cross potent ; in each angle, springing from the
centre, a sceptre surmounted by a quatrefoil;
between the quatrefoils and the arms of the cross,
a small star. All within an inner circle duplicated.
As the next type, 266.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 65
TYPE VIII.
1114 1116.
Fig. K.
HAWKINS, 266.
Examples also illustrated. Ending, ii., 7, and Sup. i., 13 ;
Snelling, i., 16 and 17 ; Withy and Ryall, ii., 4 and 6 ; Num.
Chron., 1893, xii., 266.
Obv. Legend.
REX
*I\ENRI RE
REX
Three-quarter bust to right, crowned with a diadem
surmounted hy three small fleurs or crosses.
Sceptre fleury in the King's right hand, directed
over his shoulder. Before the bust, to the right of
the coin, the King's left hand pointing ; above it,
three stars, or roses, in the field, or two, in one
instance three, in the fluid and one at the end of
the legend (see Pig. L and PI. IV., No. 6). No
inner circle.
Rvv. Cross potent, in each angle, springing from the centre
a sceptre surmounted by a quatrefoil ; between the
quatrefoils and the arms of the cross, a small star.
All within an inner circle, generally duplicated.
[PL IV, Nos. 58.]
Fig. L.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES.
K
C>C) NUMISMATIC 'CHRONICLE.
Mints 7.
Canterbury Southwark Wareham or
Chichester Thetford Warwick
London Winchester
Henry is in England for about ten months between
1114 and 1116.
Number of specimens noted. 10. Varieties. 1.
Finds. None recorded
Weight and quality. 17 20| grains, one or two fine
silver, the rest base.
Form of letters. Exactly as the last, except that
monograms and the reversed VL are discon-
tinued, and the round G is now introduced on one
specimen. (PI. IV., No. 7.) There are two instances
of Latinized moneyers' names.
Hawkins is not as accurate as usual in his description
of this type, viz. :
" Rev. Cross potent over a cross fleury, a pellet, lozenge,
or st ir in each angle. . . . The variety engraved in Rud., Sup.,
i., 13, was Mr. White's, and is not to be depended upon.
Snelling, i., 16 is most likely from the same com."
Although the small stars are nearly obliterated on
Figs. J and K, no coin with a cross fleury or pellets or
lozenges on the reverse, has passed under observation
during the collection of these notes, and the error has
arisen because Ruding, ii. 7, and Snelling, i. 17, the
authorities quoted by Hawkins, are incorrectly engraved in
these resp.cts from the coin now in the Hunter Collection,
Glasgow University (PL IV., No, 7). His own engraving
266 also will be seen to be inaccurate if compared with the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 67
photographic illustrations of the same coin in Num. Chron.,
1898, xii. 266, and PI. IV., No. 8.
On the other hand, the coin engraved in Ruding, Sup., i.
13, and Snelling, i. 16, which Hawkins doubts as a
variety, is really of the true type, for both illustrations
are poor copies of the engraving in Withy and Ryall, ii. 4,
which, so far as the reverse is concerned, is a very excel-
lent illustration of the type. The coin it represents is
said to have been found " in the centre of a piece of the
ruined wall part of the Abbey of Reading." Reading
Abbey was founded in 1121 ; so this type would then be
plentiful.
It is curious how fashion influences the ornaments in
the designs of a coinage. In the last type an occasional
star appeared ; now stars are part of the standard device.
Similarly on one or two of the former coins a quatrefoil
was introduced ; now it is a favourite ornament, and
will appear on three out of the four following types ; again,
one specimen of the last type has an extra quatrefoil at
the end of the obverse legend, now two coins have an
additional star in that position.
That this type, which is one of the most artistic of
the Norman series, follows 267, is shown by the mule
coin connecting the two described under that heading ;
also its general character is that of succession. It could
not have preceded it because of the connecting links
between 257 and 267.
Variety. (A) The "mule" coin, Fig. J, given under 267.
TYPE IX.
11161119.
Fig. M.
HAWKINS, 264.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, Sup., i., 12; Snelling,
i., 19; Withy and Ryall, ii., 14; Num. Chron., x., p. 21, 10,
and 1893, xii., 264.
Olv. Legend.
*IxENEIEVS BE
.frliENEIEVS E:
.frriENBIEVS:
Crowned bust in profile to left ; in the field before the
face, a rose composed of a centre pellet with several
smaller ones surrounding it. All within an inner
circle broken at the crown. The legend commencing
to the right of the crown instead of, as has hitherto
been the invariable rule, on the left side of the coin.
Rev. Cross potent, pierced, or with an annulet, in the
centre ; an annulet, enclosing a pellet, in each
angle. All within an inner circle. [PL 4., Nos.
9-11.]
Mints 9.
Canterbury
Chichester
Lewes
Lincoln
London
South wark
Stamford
Thetford
Wallingford
Henry was not in England during the issue of this
type, i.e. Michaelmas, 1116-1119.
Number of specimens noted. 12.
Finds. None recorded.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 69
Weight and quality. 18| 19 j grains, variable
from fine silver to very base.
Form of letters. As the last. The Latinized
moneyer's name continues.
That this is a much later type than 256, which so
nearly resembles it, is shown by the neater form of letter-
ing, by its highly ornamented workmanship and the rare
absence of a sceptre, as upon the next type but one, by the
complete use of the colons on both obverse and reverse, by
the association of its money ers' names with those on the
immediately preceding and succeeding types, and lastly,
by the first appearance upon it of the curious formNIEOL
for the name of Lincoln, which will presently become
common. From the year 1110 to that of 1125 we have a
complete series of types, all successively linked together by
the so-called " mule " coins, with the exception of a connec-
ting link between 266 and 263. So, if the mule coins are to
be relied upon, and stronger evidence could not be desired,
this type must either follow here, between 266 and 263,
or be placed before 1110 or after 1125. But this type,
with all those issued between 1108 and 1125, bears the
" snick " described under 252, so must be subsequent to
1108, and it is certainly later than 1110. To place it after
1125 is impossible, for we have no debased coins during
the remainder of the reign after the great Inquisition of
the Money ers of that date, nor is there room, amongst
the types for it. The explanation of the difference in
the obverse legend, and the interpolation of a plain
type amongst what may be termed the five quatrefoil
types, is probably that given in Chapter V, viz., the
necessity for a complete distinction between the profile
coins and the usual front-faced ones. In relation to
T)
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
this it may be noticed that there is much similarity
between most of the profile types of this reign, and in
fact of the whole Norman series. Moreover, in the
natural order, a profile type ought to come now, for we
have had three consecutive front- faced ones. The rose,
instead of a sceptre, upon it stamps it as one of the orna-
ment series, and a rose appears on the previous and the
succeeding types.
Rare as this type is to us, the proportion of nine mints
out of twelve coins suggests a longer period of issue or
currency than usual, for, as the gathering ground of a
find was always fixed, the fact of so many mints being
represented in a dozen specimens collected haphazard at
the date of deposit, shows that they must have had ample
time to become thoroughly mixed in circulation, or other-
wise the local mints, wherever the find or finds of these
coins occurred, would have predominated.
Varieties. : None.
TYPE X.
11191121.
Fig. N.
HAWKINS, 263.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, Sup., i., 10, and ii., i., 7 ;
Siielling, i., 18; Num. Chron., 1893, xii., 263.
Obv. Legend. .frriENRI REX
frhENRI RE
E REX
*hENRIE: RE
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 71
Crowned bust facing, annulets on the points of the
crown ; sceptre fleury, surmounted by a quatrefoil,
to left ; in the field to right, a star, or rose, above,
and quatrefoil below. No inner circle.
Rev. A large quatrefoil enclosing a cross potent, each foil
surmounted by an annulet ; an annulet at each
angle inwards, and a quatrefoil in each spandrel.
All within an inner circle. [PI. V., Nos. 1 5.]
Mints 5.
Chester London Winchester
Lincoln St. Edmundsbury
The coin assigned by Hawkins to Sandwich is given
to St. Edmundsbury.
Henry is in England for about nine months between
1119 and 1121.
Number of specimens noted. 12, representing, per-
haps, 10 coins. Varieties 1.
Finds. None recorded.
Weight and quality. 18-19 grains, base.
Form of letters. As the last.
The centre portion of the reverse design of this type is
almost identical with the design of the last, and if, as seems
to be intended, a rose is one of the ornaments on the
obverse of some of these coins for it is difficult to dis-
tinguish a star from a rose we have a close similarity
between the two types.
It is suggested that the death of Otho Fitz Otto occurred
at this time, for after this type there is a complete change
of style in the coinage, and the legend tfifiENRIE EEX
alone does not again appear. The custom, too, of rilling
all available space with small ornaments is, after this
type, discontinued, and the sceptre flory will in future
be the onlv one used.
t'2 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
.
The engraving, Ruding, Sup., i., 10, and Snelling, i., 18 (of
the same coin, now in the British Museum), reading +AL ....
ON LVNDO, does not give the star on the obverse ; but this,
however, is an error owing to indistinctness of the original,
and the pellets opposite the ends of the arms of the cross on the
reverse as shown on the engravings do not exist. [See PL V.,
No. 4.]
Variety (A) In the Hunter Museum, Glasgow University,
is the following unique " mule " speci-
men :
Fig. O.
Obv. .frtyENRII] EEX. The ordinary obverse of this
type.
Rev. ^.ELFPINE ON (SLOP : Gloucester.
Cross flory within an inner circle. As the next,
Hawkins type, IV.
TYPE XI.
11211123.
Fig. P.
HAWKINS, TYPE IV.
Examples illustrated. Ruding, Sup., i., 6, and Sup. ii., ii., 6
Xum. Citron., 1881, iii., 2, and 1893, xi., 5 (obverse), xii., T. 4
(reverse). [In arranging the last-mentioned plates the two
obverses were accidentally transposed.]
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HKXRY I. 73
Obv. Legend.
EEX ANGL .frriENEIE EEX
EEX AN *1\ENEIEVS EEX: AN
EEX A .frhENEILVS EEX A
frfiENC EEX A .frfiENEIEVS EEX
EEX AN *hENEIEVS E
Crowned bust facing ; the crown almost plain, with a
label usually ending in a small annulet at either
side. All within an inner circle. The legend
commencing over the crown.
Rev. Cross flory within an inner circle. Barely a pellet in
each angle of the cross and sometimes an annulet or
peUet in the centre. [PI. V., Nos. 612.]
Mints 15.
Bristol Hastings St. Edmundsbury
Canterbury Lincoln Southampton
Chester London Southwark
Chichester Norwich Thetford
Gloucester Nottingham Worcester
The coin given by Hawkins to Leicester is here
assigned to Chester.
Henry is in England for about twenty months be-
tween 1121 and 1123.
Number of specimens noted. 29, representing, per-
haps, 25 coins, and including 4 varieties.
Finds. Battle and Nottingham.
Average weight and quality. 17-21| grains, base
metal, one or two only fine silver.
Form of letters. The round C and JR are introduced
on these coins, but the reversed VL is also used on
others. Otherwise as before.
Although this is still one of the " quatrefoil " series
(as will appear from a variety), it is of very different work-
manship from the previous examples, and the introduc-
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. L
74
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
tion of a complete inner circle on the obverse is an instance
which had not occurred for some fifty years probably
before the first Otto was appointed to office ; in fact, this
type is the commencement of a short-lived but rapid de-
terioration in the coinage in every respect. For ten years
Henry had spent little of his time in England, and the
coinage had become more and more debased, until in this,
and the four previous types, it is the exception to find a
coin of apparently anything like standard silver. It will
be noticed that the obverse legend bears a striking simi-
larity to Henry's first type, 251 ; and, like it, shows
much variety, and some blundering. This is accounted
for by the supposition that, Otho Fitz Otto being dead, a
new hand commences the sinking of the dies, and as Otto
the elder was, on Henry's accession, at first uncertain in
his legends, owing to the introduction of a new name and
title, so this engraver was uncertain and variable in the
work of his first type. Possibly he was the Leostanus
aurifaber of London mentioned in the Cnihtengild charter
of 1125 (see Commune of London, p. 106).
That this type clearly follows 263 is quite evident from
the " mule " specimen (Fig. 0) described under the
previous type, connecting both, and that it immediately
precedes the next, 258, will be similarly shown under that
heading. (Fig. S.) The appearance of the occasional
round and Jtt on this type, coupled with the 6 on type
266 and the reversed K throughout, discloses the gradual
introduction of Norman influences upon our coinage, until
upon some of the remarkable pieces of the next reign we
have very nearly a complete Gallic alphabet. These letters
tend to place this type comparatively late in the list or
at least later than those previously described. The Not-
tingham and Battle finds also corroborate this, for both
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 75
contained this type and only coins (with an odd exception
of type 251) issued later in the reign, or in that of
Stephen (see page 79).
The increased number of mints of this type is explained
by the return of Henry and most of his barons to England
in November, 1120, where he and they stayed until 1123.
So the chartered mints again appear in a larger proportion.
Varieties (A) The "mule" obverse of the last, 263, and
reverse of this type described under the
former heading (see Fig. 0).
(B) The coin engraved, Ruding, Sup., ii., 2, 6,
purchased by Messrs. Spink at the Mon-
tagu Sale, having a quatrefoil to the right
of the King's bead. See Hastings and,
as to another, probably similar, London.
Compare also the Worcester coin. [PL V.,
No. 7.]
(C) A "mule " in tbe Hunter Museum, obverse of
the next type, 258, and reverse of this,
described under the next type (see Fig. S).
(D) Mr. F. G. Lawrence bad a unique coin, un-
fortunately broken, which, if complete,
would be as follows :
Tig. Q.
Obv. As tbis type, witb the labels terminating in annulets
exactly as upon an ordinary obverse.
Rev. Cross moline, voided, upon a square with a small
annulet at eacb corner. All within an inner circle.
Instead of an outer circle enclosing tbe legend, a
large quatrefoil terminating at eacb angle in a com-
plete fleur-de-lis inwards, a small annulet in each
spandrel. Legends blank. Metal very base.
76
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
The reverse is that of a distinct type, but standing
alone as the coin at present does, it is impossible to
decide whether it is a mule of this type -with a
reverse of some obverse die hitherto undiscovered,
or whether, as seems more probable, it is a trial
piece of a reverse design intended for the next type,
but used with this obverse for convenience of strik-
ing, as its own obverse die might not then have
been in existence.
Assuming the latter hypothesis, we have a rather
simple explanation of the remarkable double circle
for the reverse legend. It will be obvious that
upon this coin the large fleurs-de-lis occupy at
least one-third of the space usually available for
the reverse legend, and so in practice it was at once
found impossible to place the complete reverse
legend upon it. Hence the die was not adopted,
but the designer was determined to bring the
legend space into play in the design and divide it
with ornaments into similar sections. So to enable
him to do this he was obliged to continue the
legend in a second and inner circle, as will be
described under the next type. The fact that there
are no letters legible on the reverse of this coin
may support the theory that it was merely a trial
of the design and that therefore a legend was never
cut.
The last type of the reign (255) is a fairly close imita-
tion of the centre portion of this reverse variety,
and no doubt the design of both is merely varied
from that of Hawkins 238 of William I.
TYPE XII.
11231125 (Christmas).
Fig. R.
HAWKINS, 258.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 77
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, Sup. ii., i. 3, and ii. Nos.
12, 13, and 14; Withy and Ryall, ii., 15; Num. Chron., 1893,
xii., 258.
Obv. Legend. I\ENK IiENBI hENKE
Large crowned bust in profile to left; before, a sceptre
fleury, sometimes surmounted by an annulet. No
inner circle. The King's right hand, which is
very large in proportion (as the left is on 266), is
brought before the bust to hold the sceptre. Some-
times ornaments of one, or usually two, quatrefoils
before the sceptre, or before the face, or five small
annulets before the face.
Rev^ Sin all cross within two concentric spaces for
the legend, the inner containing the name of the
mint and the outer that of the moneyer ; the word
ON being usually divided between the two, but
sometimes in one or the other. In the outer space
are four equidistant annulets enclosing quatrefoils.
Scarcely two coins of this type are alike, and so a
description of each will be given under its mint.
[PI. VI., Nos. 19, and see PL VIII.]
Mints 6.
Canterbury Lincoln Norwich
Hastings London Southwark
Henry is not in England during the issue of this type
Michaelmas, 1123, to Christmas, 1125.
Number of specimens noted. 14, including two
varieties and a cut halfpenny.
Finds. Battle and Wallsop (near Salisbury).
"Weight and quality. 20|, and the halfpenny, 9 P 2
grains. The most debased type of the reign.
Form of letters. The letters do not show any pecu-
liarities, but are small and neat. This is the only
type in the Norman regal series on which the initial
cross to the obverse legend is dispensed with. The
annulets enclosing quatrefoils, or the cross com-
to NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
mencing tlie inner legend, sometimes supersede the
colons upon the reverse, although they are still
used in several instances. The old H given in
Ruding, Sup., ii., ii., 13, is an engraver's error for
the usual, though indistinct h upon the coin. [See
PL VI., No. 3.]
This is the most interesting type of the reign, and the
design of the two concentric legends was no doubt the
prototype of that of the later groat, the first example of
which, in Edward I's reign, not only bore a large quatre-
foil on the obverse, but had the outer legend of the reverse
similarly broken up by large floriated terminations to
the arms of the cross. Therefore we may infer from its
subsequent popularity that, but for the great Inquisition
of the Money ers, which so tragically suppressed this issue,
the idea of the two circles would not have disappeared so
suddenly from all designs of the pennies.
This type is not only the last of the ornament coins,
but also that of the " snicked " series as described under
252, page 55. On the other hand, it is the first since that
type of which we find the cut halfpenny. (PI. VI., No. 9.)
The coins are unfortunately wretchedly struck, and most of
them are more or less broken or cracked. This latter fact
is probably owing to their debasement, and the con-
sequent custom of the merchants, referred to under type
252, page 55, of breaking them in testing their quality a
custom, by the way, not yet quite obsolete. That this
type followed the last, Hawkins, IV, is practically proved
by the " mule," presently described under the varieties,
connecting the two, but there are other indications of
their close relationship. The name of Lincoln appears
on both, and only on these two types, as LIEOLEN, and
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 79
five of the nine money ers whose names are decipherable
upon this type are common to both.
In Num. Chron., N.S. xiii, 175, Mr. Churchill Babing-
ton contributed an account of twelve coins, examined by
him, from the Battle find of 1860 (?), two of which were
of these two types, and the remainder of the last and
commonest of the reign, 255.
As an example of this type also appeared in the
Wallsop find, it was evidently a comparatively late one
of the reign, for that find was deposited in Stephen's
reign, and, so far as the nine specimens from it are
concerned, which happened to have been engraved in
Ruding, Sup., ii., plate 2, this type was the earliest in
the find, the one other of Henry's reign being his last
type but one, 262. But as the next type, 265, and the last,
255, had already been engraved in that work, and were
well known, it is more than probable they were also re-
presented in the find, though not engraved. This would
give a sequence of all the four types from now to Henry's
death. Still, too much reliance should not be placed upon
the appearance of a single example in any hoard.
These uncouth and debased coins are, undoubtedly, by
far the worst of the whole Norman series, and when we
compare them with the neat round and standard coinage
of the two Williams, we are not surprised that Henry
should at last take drastic measures once and for all to
put an end to the system of gradual but increasing de-
basement which had been progressing during the last
four types, until in this it has reached its climax. Even
his prohibition of the cut halfpenny of 1108 is now
ignored, and it is significant of the theory suggested in
Chapter I., page 11, that its reappearance should occur
coincidently with an epoch of extreme debasement.
80 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
No wonder, therefore, that the Saxon chronicler bitterly
complains that :
" This year, 1124, the penny was so bad that the man who
had a pound at the market would hardly, for anything, pass
twelve of these pennies."
In other words, out of 240 pennies only some 12 would
be accepted at their nominal value. Under the next year,
1125, the same authority tells us :
" Before Christmas this year, King Henry sent from Nor-
mandy to England, and commanded that all the money ers of
England should be deprived of their limbs, namely of their
right hands, and be otherwise mutilated. And this because a
man might have a pound, and yet not be able to spend one
penny at a market. And Roger, Bishop of Salisbury [as Chief
Justiciary], sent over all England and summoned all of them to
come to Winchester at Christmas ; and when they came thither
his men took them, one by one, and cut off their right hands.
All this was done within the twelve days, and with much justice,
because they had ruined this land with the great quantity of
bad metal which they all bought."
Very similar passages occur in Wendover, Florence,
Annals of Winchester, and of St. Edmuudsbury, Waverley
and Margaii, Wikes, Simeon of Durham, Ralph de Dicet,
and Fordun. The majority of these authorities too fix
the date as 1125, not 1124 as the Saxon Chronicle, which
commences its years at Christmas, rather suggests. Wil-
liam Gemmeticensis adds that :
" the money was so debased with tin that scarcely one-
third part was silver ; and Henry was informed of it by his
soldiers in Normandy, who found they could not purchase so
much with their pay as they had done theretofore when the
money was made of silver."
In the multitude of chroniclers there is safety; and we,
therefore, know that the adulteration of the coinage had
been brought to such a pass that this great Inquisition
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 81
of the Moneyers was held at Christmas 1125-6, and that
wholesale punishment fell upon the moneyers. But to
mutilate " all the moneyers of England " would have been
a blow to the system of coinage from which it would
never have recovered, so a qualification of the above
account must be borrowed from Florence and Wikes, who
tell us that, though all were summoned, those " taken
with counterfeit money," that is convicted, only were
punished. The Annals of Margan are more explicit, and
tell us that the number was 94.
So far as the eleven moneyers whose names appear upon
our coins of this type are concerned, six or seven continue
to coin subsequently, more by good fortune than desert,
one would say, and, therefore, only four or five stop,
perhaps tragically, now. Hence " all the moneyers "
could not have been punished, for, after conviction, a
moneyer would never again be allowed to assume office,
even if physically competent to do so.
During the whole period of the issue of this type, Henry
and his barons were engaged in suppressing the revolt in
Normandy, and, therefore, nearly all of the grantees of the
private mints would be abroad with him. Hence these
mints would be dormant, and if all the moneyers then
coining in England had been punished, there would not
have been so very many of them.
As this was the issue of a profile type it was probably
intended to now limit the legal currency to it and the
two types issued since 264, but the Inquisition of the
Moneyers led to an immediate and entire change in the
tender. This was accomplished by the succession of a
second profile type, which would at once call in this one,
and, therefore, as its currency was limited to the period
only of its issue, 258 must necessarily remain a scarce
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. M
82
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
coin in our cabinets, for, apart from other reasons, it thus
had only an authorized currency of about fifteen months,
and there would be little opportunity for the deposit of
many hoards of it to await the accident of discovery.
Varieties. (A) The Hunter Museum, Glasgow University,
has a unique "mule" obverse of this type
and reverse of the last, namely :
Kg. 8.
Olv. I\ The ordinary obverse of this type, with
one, probably two, quatrefoils before the sceptre.
Rev. BYEEriAET : O Cross flory, with the
annulet in the centre. As the previous type,
Hawkins IV.
(B) Mr. L. A. Lawrence has a unique variety, on
which the usual position of the moneyer's
name and of that of the mint is trans-
posed, and which bears also other slight
deviations from the ordinary type,
namely :
Fig. T.
Olv. IiEKR . The ordinary obverse of this type, with two
quatrefoils before the sceptre; a small annulet sur-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 83
mounting the sceptre and another upon the outline
of the nose as on PI. VI., No. 3, but not shown on
Fig. T.
Rev. .J.BLAEMN : ON LV(N)DE. Of this type, but the
moneyer's name >J<BLAEMN" is in the inner space,
and the remainder of the legend in the outer. See
under London.
NOTE. Mr. Hawkios' engraving, 258, does not
show the small cross in the centre of the
reverse, but this is owing to a small piece
having been broken out of the coin, for
there are still some indications remaining
of its original impression. [PI. VI., No. 4.]
TYPE XIII.
1126 (January) 1128 (Michaelmas).
Fig. U.
HAWKINS, 265.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, ii., 5 ; Snelling, i., 22 ;
Withy and Ryall, ii., 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. Vertue's plates
(area 1738), for the portrait of Henry I. Num. Chron., N. S.
xx., xi., 18; 1893, xii., 265 ; Montagu Catalogue, 298.
Obv. Legend. .frftENEIEVS .j.I\ENEIEVS : E:
EE:
Crowned bust in profile to left ; before, a sceptre, the
Bang's right hand being brought before the bust to
hold the aceptre, as on the last type; within an
inner circle springing from the shoulders.
Treasure of four slightly concave sides terminating at
each angle in a fleur-de-lis, and enclosing a star ; an
84
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
ornament composed of three small annulets usually,
but not always, joined together opposite each side
of the tressure. All within an inner circle. [Pis.
VI., 1011, and VII., 13.]
Mints 22.
Barnstaple
Bath
Bedford
Bristol
Canterbury
Colchester
Dorchester
Lincoln
London
Northampton
Norwich
Nottingham
St. Edmundsbury
Southampton
Stamford
Sudbury
Tanrworth
Thetford
Wallingford
Warwick
Winchester
Worcester
Henry is in England for about twenty-four months
between January, 1126, and Michaelmas, 1128.
Number of specimens noted. 73, but allowing for
possible duplicate references, and, say, half the
Wallingford coins many of which are false
perhaps 55. There are also several cut halfpennies.
Finds. None recorded, although this type is believed
to have appeared in the Milford Haven hoard,
referred to under the next type.
Average weight and quality. Full weight, and of
standard silver.
Form of letters. The lettering makes a decided
advance in its modernisation under this type.
Although the D still occasionally appears, Tfi is
now for the first time used in its place. W, upon
a doubtful authority, however, is said in one instance
to supersede the hitherto invariable Saxon P. The
use of the colons, on the reverse, at least, is almost
universal, and letters are rarely joined in mono-
gram. On the reverse of a Southampton coin, the
old H once more appears, but as this seems to
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 85
be the only instance in the reign after the year
1106, it may be accepted as an accident on the
part of the engraver of the die. Latinized moneyers'
names are by no means uncommon, and generally
the legends are neat and most carefully executed.
" Afterwards," says Florence of Worcester, referring
to the great Inquisition of Moneyers of 1125, mentioned
under the last type, " by a change in the coinage all articles
became very dear, and in consequence a great scarcity
ensued, and numbers died of famine." Evidently Florence,
or rather his continuator, was not a bi-metallist; but the
importance of the passage to us is to show that the coin-
age was at once restored to the old standard silver. We
have seen that the last type, according to William Gem-
meticensis, only contained one-third part of silver, and,
therefore, probably two, or even three, of the old pennies
would have to be exchanged with the moneyers for one of
the new, and so it would entail much loss and distress
upon the public.
Under the year 1154-5 Wendover recounts the story
of the conversion of St. Wulfric, already more than once
referred to here, which he says occurred twenty-nine years
before, thus placing it at the commencement of this type,
1126. In it occurs the passage :
" for, at that time, there was a new coinage in England in the
days of Henry I, but still rare on account of its recency.
Wulfric replied (to the mendicant) that he did not know whether
he had any of the new coinage or not. Upon which the man
said, ' Look into your wallet and you will find there two pieces
and a half.' "
It will be remembered that the cut half-pennies were
only reintroduced in the last type, and we have similar
examples of this, and also of the types following, to
the close of the reign, and so this important little anec-
86 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
dote corroborates two facts. One, that the issue of this
standard type after the base ones which had gone before
it, was a change in the coinage of such importance as to
be remembered nearly thirty years afterwards; and,
two, that the cut half-penny was then again in circulation.
Naturally this change required a second consecutive
profile type, and so its issue, according to the rule sug-
gested in Chapter V, p. 36, invalidated the tender of every
type issued prior to it, thus compelling everyone to change
his coin into the new coinage, and causing such scarcity
of money that not only was the event long remembered,
but the people suffered the cost of re-establishing the
standard, and so "all articles became very dear."
It must be apparent that the hand which designed the
last uncouth type never cut this, the most beautiful speci-
men of workmanship of any reign prior to that of Henry
VII at least. But we may assume that the Inquisition
and " change in the coinage " necessarily brought about
the fate of the designer who, to some extent, was respon-
sible for the late deterioration, and so the incompetent
artist of the two previous types would be dismissed. With
him disappeared, so far as this reign is concerned, the
fashion of ornaments and of irregularity of design, and
now, for the future, every die is practically a facsimile of
the others of its type so far as the device is concerned.
The Inquisition also seems to have had a beneficial
effect upon the moneyers, not only as to the purity of
the metal, but in abolishing the issue of " mule " coins,
for we find no more during the reign. If the " mules "
were mere accidents of using a wrong die, it is curious
that they disappear with the Inquisition, but as by so
using an old one the moneyer saved his fees for the new
die, the accident theory is very doubtful to say the least
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 87
of it, and a Pipe Roll entry quoted under "Winchester
more than strengthens the doubt.
The following passage in the Dialogue (circa 1180)
seems to define this offence as " false stamping," or to be
literal " in falsa imagine" = false in the device :
"Disciple: Inasmuch, then, as all money of this Kingdom
ought to have the stamped image of the King, and all moneyers
are bound to work according to the same weight, how can it
happen that all their work is not of one weight ?
" Master : That is a great question .... but it can happen
through forgers and clippers or cutters of coin. Thou knowest,
moreover, that the money of England can be found false in three
ways : false namely in weight, false in quality, false in the
stamping. But these kinds of falsification are not visited by an
equal punishment." Henderson's Historical Documents, cf. Dr.
Stubbs' Select Charters.
The designer of this type, possibly the aurifaber Wyzo
Fitz Leosfcan also mentioned in the Cnihtengild charter
of 1125, may be presumed to be the " magister" referred
to in the Pipe Roll of 1130, for William Fitz Otho, the
hereditary designer, there pays ten silver marks on account
of fees amounting to 36 Os. lOd. that he might no longer
have a Master over him. This no doubt occurred upon
the completion of his apprenticeship and succession to
office ; therefore, at the date of this issue, 1126, William
Fitz Otho would probably be under the directions of a
freshly appointed engraver. In the same Roll Wyzo is
mentioned as owing half a mark of gold for succession to
his father Leofstan's lands and office. This official,
whether Wyzo or not, was the only artist from the date
of the Conquest to the reign of Henry VII who attempted
anything further than a stereotyped representation of an
English King. To say that he produced an actual por-
trait of Henry I would be perhaps to exaggerate, for in
1126 the King was in his 57th year, and the type usually
represents a comparatively young man [but a parallel case
88 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
is instanced upon our postage stamps of to-day], Vertue
in the first half of the eighteenth century recognised this
attempt, for he adopted it as the model for his portrait of
Henry I, a portrait which has since become the generally
accepted likeness of that monarch. Taking it, therefore,
with all qualifications, we may well assume that the bust
very accurately represents the King as he was seen with
sceptre and robes wearing his crown at the three great
feasts of the year in 1126.
On several types of the Confessor his historic beard
had been faithfully represented, and the careful observer
will notice that this is the first Norman coin which por-
trays long hair. Moreover, it is gathered together into a
sort of queue terminating in a curl or annulet. The
head is in profile and, therefore, only shows one such
queue, but on Henry's statue at Rochester Cathedral a
similar one is shown over each shoulder, and certain
ancient chessmen discovered in the Isle of Lewis in 1831,
probably of this date, have the King's coiffure represented
almost exactly as upon the coin. This fashion of long
hair was a recent innovation at the very date of the issue
of this type, and Matthew of Westminster tells us that
in 1127 "King Henry caused all the soldiers of England
to cut their hair a proper length, as previously they vied
with women in the length of their hair." Orderic cor-
roborates this custom of the nobility by recounting that
William Louvel, to facilitate his escape from the battle of
Bourg-Theroude, in 1124, had his hair cropped " so that
he might pass (through the enemies' lines) as a yokel."
After Henry's proclamation of 1127 against the fashion
we do not again find anything of the kind upon his coins.
It is a common error to describe the design of this and
certain types of Stephen and Henry II as "bust in
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 89
armour, &c." The mistake has arisen from the simi-
larity of the decorative pearls upon the mantle to the
bosses or rivets of the far later gorget, for studs and
bosses were unknown in this form until their necessity
arose on the introduction of plate armour in the four-
teenth century. The Norman warrior was invariably
clad in the long and plain mail hauberk, so accurately
represented by the full-length figure of EVSTAEIVS upon
the coin (Hawkins, 283) photographed in the Montagu
Catalogue No. 358.
Henry is in England during nearly the whole period of
the issue of this type, hence the large number of its mints.
Varieties. None ; save the trefoil as a mint mark upon the
reverse star described under Peterborough
and Stamford.
Fortunately Mr. L. A. Lawrence has recently ex-
posed several forgeries of this type, and
of a "mule" of it and 255 (Num. Chron.,
1899, p. 241). If this latter variety
had been accepted as genuine it would
have caused endless trouble in arranging
the order of this and the last two types of.
the reign, for 262 most certainly inter-
venes between 265 and 255.
TYPE XIV.
11281131.
Fig. V.
HAWKINS, 262.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, Sup., i., 11, ii., 6; Pait
ii., i., 5 and ii., 7 ; Snelling, i., 23 ; Withy and Byall, ii., 7, 8,
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. N
90
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
9, 10. Speed's Chronicle, 1611, p. 455; Num. Chron., xii.,
p. 138, 1, 2, and 84 1893, xii., 262; Archceohgia, 1822, 540.
Obv. Legend.
.frftENRIEVS:
.fhERIEVS
.frhENRIEVIS R
.frhENRIEVS RE
R : *I\ENRIEVS REX
Crowned bust facing ; sceptre flory (held in the King's
right hand) to the left, and a star to the right of the
head; suspended from either side of the crown,
three pellets. All within an inner circle springing
from the shoulders.
Rev . A large quatrefoil enclosing a star upon a cross of
pellets; each foil surmounted by three annulets
joined; opposite each spandrel a fleur-de-lis inwards
springing from an inner circle enclosing the whole.
[PI. VII., Nos. 47.]
The variation mentioned by Hawkins and engraved
262 and Ruding, Sup., ii., 1, 5, of a cross of four
pellets instead of the star on the obverse seems
to be an engraver's error.
The Bristol coin questioned by him because of its
having been White's, aud classed as a variety, is
now in the Hunter Museum and is of the ordinary
type (Ruding, Sup. i., 11). He has not noticed that
all well struck coins of this type bear the star on
the obverse.
Mints 30.
Bath
Bristol
Canterbury
Carlisle
Chester
Colchester
Dorchester
Durham
Exeter
Gloucester
Hereford
Huntingdon
Ipswich
Leicester
Lincoln
London
Northampton
Nottingham
St. Edmundsbury
Salisbury
Southwark
Stamford
Sudbury
Tamworth
Thetford
Wareham or
Warwick
Wilton
Winchester
Worcester
York
Hawkins gives Norwich, Romney, and Sandwich, but
the coins are here assigned respectively to North-
ampton, London, and St. Edmundsbury, for reasons
detailed under those headings.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 91
Henry is in England for about eighteen months
between 1128 and 1131.
Number of specimens noted. 135.
Finds. Watford and Milford Haven.
Weight and quality. 19 1 to 22| grains of standard
metal.
Form of letters. As the last type, but not quite so
neat. Although the Saxon P is still general, the
modern W appears on the coins of several mints.
The D (unless "BAD" for Bath includes it) has
entirely ^disappeared. On dies bearing the names
of two Winchester moneyers, the colons at the end
of the reverse legend are varied thus * and on a
Gloucester coin '.'
We have ample evidence that this was the last type
but one of the reign. The Watford find of 1818, described
by Mr. Rashleigh in The Numismatic Chronicle xii., 138,
was deposited in Stephen's time, but contained some 480
pennies and cut half- pennies of Henry I. Of these,
58 were of this type, and the remainder of the
next, 255. There were no other types or varieties so far
as Henry's reign was concerned, and as the whole find
comprised over eleven hundred coins, these two types must
have been the last issued and the only types of his still in
general circulation at the date of the deposit. This fact
must have escaped attention or no one would have sug-
gested any other date for these coins.
But that is not all ; our oldest public record, with the
exception of Domesday, is an " odd volume " of the Great
Roll of the Pipe for the year 1130. The Pipe Roll was
probably a sequel to Domesday, though perhaps not
instituted until early in the reign of Henry I, when he
remodelled the Exchequer. It was continued every year
92
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
from that event to modern time3, but although it is marvel-
lous that we have practically a complete series since the
second year of Henry II, this is the only year remaining
to us in the interim prior to 1154-5. It contains the
accounts rendered to the Exchequer by the various
Sheriffs of the Kingdom made up to Michaelmas in every
year, and this particular one, therefore, contains the period
September 30th, 1129, to September 29th, 1130. As it is
not actually dated it was formerly assigned to various years,
such as the eighteenth of Henry I, the fifth of Stephen, and
the first of Henry II, but since Dr. Hunter in 1833 first
correctly attributed it, those who have studied it have
found this date to be ascertained beyond question
from its internal evidence. As, however, it will be
quoted again and again in the following pages, its
date is of the greatest importance to this subject, and,
therefore, if any doubt should still remain the following
perhaps additional proofs may shortly be quoted from
the dozens it contains. It refers to the then Bishop of
Winchester as having lately been Abbot of Glastonbury
this, therefore, was Henry of Blois, who was nppointed
in 1129, so the date could not have been earlier than
that year. Hence, as it contains entries of the expenses
in connection with the visit of Henry's court to Wood-
stock, it must be for that year, 1129-1130, as Henry only
held a Court there twice, viz., in 1123, and at Easter,
1130. From Woodstock he went to Canterbury with
Henry of Winchester on May 4th to attend the conse-
cration of the Cathedral, and four days afterwards to
Rochester (Huntingdon, Saxon Chronicle, &c.), and the
Roll contains an item of 3s. 4d. for the repair of Roches-
ter Bridge " against the coming of the King."
It may be called " a common-place book " of the King-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 93
dom, for it records everything that. occurred of a financial
character, from the cost of the candles still kept burning
over the late Queen Matilda's tomb at Westminster, to
the fees of a widow for the privilege of remaining un-
married. But what concerns us most are various entries
of fines and forfeits upon the conviction of moneyers for
offences against the coinage. These would probably be
fines for short weight, as many of our coins of this type
are still below the standard. They will be given in detail
under the history of the various mints, but with few
exceptions the financial portion of the conviction only
is recorded, for the corporal punishment concerned the
moneyer, not the Exchequer. The actual dates of the
convictions, unless they happen to occur in the latter
half of the current year, are not given, and we find in
the later Rolls that fines were often paid off by instalments
extending over three or four years, but the credit for the
year and the balance remaining due are all that is entered,
so there is nothing to tell us to a year or two in or before
1130, when the conviction occurred, unless it is entered
under " Nova Placita."
Now nearly all these unfortunate moneyers thus men-
tioned in the Roll are men whose names appear upon this
type, and the remainder are the issuers of the last, 265.
After conviction the moneyer, of course, lost his office,
so, with the exception of one or two instances only ex-
plainable no doubt by the trivial character of the offence
and, consequently, the infliction of a mere fine, see the
extract from the Dialogue, p. 87 their names do not
appear upon the next and commonest type of the
reign, 255. Other moneyers' names also occur in this
Roll under pleasanter auspices, such as paying succession
duties, &c., and are not only identified on the- current,
94 NUMISiMATIC CHRONICLE.
or on the previous, but also upon the following types, for
there was nothing to interrupt their duties. So we have
the best of evidence that in 1129-1130 type 265 had
recently been issued, 262 was the current type, and 255
was to follow. This perfect identity between the moneyers
of the Roll and those of the types surely proves the general
theories of this work, namely : (1) That our coins of the
reign as a whole are practically a complete representation
of the coinage of the time, for otherwise half the moneyers
recorded in the Roll would be unknown to us ; (2) That
the mints by grant did not coin continuously but only
under conditions such as those already explained, for other-
wise we should find entries in the Roll of some moneyers at
least of those mints of which we have no coins of this and
the previous type, although we know that they were in
subsequent operation, and which, therefore, must have been
dormant at the particular period e.g., Dover, Hastings,
Lewes, Oxford, Pevensey, Shaftesbury, Shrewsbury, and
Taunton. These two theories are thus checked by an
accidental system of double entry upon the coins and in
the Roll independent testimony which until now has
lain buried in the earth and in the Record Office for nigh
upon eight hundred years.
Unfortunately, the JVlilford Haven hoard has remained
one of the many secrets of Treasure Trove. But some years
ago a number of coins of this type, and the previous one 265,
said to be from a then recent find, came under examination
for these notes, and it is not unlikely that they were a por-
tion at least of it. They were squandered, and are here en-
tered under the names of various owners without reference
to the find for lack of evidence to that effect. But a few
specimens of this type are so recorded, as they are known
to have come from it through a different source.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 95
The fact that the modern " W " now appears on the
coins of several mints corroborates the late date assigned
to this issue, and this is still further supported by the
first use so far as Henry's reign is concerned of
CESTER for Chester in place of some form of the old
name LEIGECEASTEE, which now disappears, Cestre or
Cester is also the name invariably used in the 1130 Roll.
After the great Inquisition of 1125, the period of issue
of each type seems to have been gradually lengthened, for
no doubt the moneyers had complained of the constant
expense of the frequent changes in mitigation of their
punishments. The currency of the last was about two
years, of this three, of the next four, and of Stephen's
first type at least five years.
The large number of mints of the last three types of
the reign is in a measure due to their longer period of
issue, but the number of this and the last type must have
been influenced by Henry's summons to all his barons to
attend the great council of Northampton in September,
1131, which would bring all, or nearly all, the grantees
of the chartered mints into England.
Varieties. None.
TYPE XV.
11311135.
Fig. W.
HAWKINS, 255.
96 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Examples also illustrated. Ruding, ii.,6; Snelling, i., 24 ;
Withy and Ryall, ii., 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 ; Archceologia, 1822,
p. 540; Num. Chron., xii., p. 138, 3, 5, 6 and 7 ; 1883, vii.,
1; 1893, xii. ,255.
Obv. Legend.
fr ftENRI : (one instance only) >{ IiERIE VS
* fiENRIE : * hENRIEVS
frriENRlEV: ^.hENEGVS
* h ERI6 V * riENRlE VS R :
Crowned bust three-quarters to the left, otherwise the
type is identical in design with the obverse of the
last, except that the star is oruitted and the crown
arched.
.Rev. Cross fleury, with a pellet in each angle and some-
times a pellet or small annulet in the centre, upon
a square of slightly concave sides terminating in
fleurs at the corners. All within an inner circle.
[PI. VII., 812.]
Mints 21.
Bath Hereford Oxford
Bristol Huntingdon St. Edmundsbury
Canterbury Ipswich Southampton
Carlisle Lincoln Stamford
Chester London Thetford
Exeter Northampton Winchester
Gloucester Norwich York
The coins given by Hawkins to Sandwich are trans-
ferred to St. Edmundsbury.
Henry is in England for about twenty-four months
between 1131 and 1135.
Number of specimens noted. 500. Another hun-
dred or more have been examined, but as they
were so badly struck as to show only fragmentary
portions of legends already noted, they are dis-
carded from the list.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 97
Finds. Battle, Wallsop ? Watford, Nottingham,
Dartford, Linton near Maidstone, and Ashby-
Wolds, Leicestershire.
"Weight and quality. Average 22 grains of standard
silver.
Form of letters. The modern C and "W are now
quite frequent. Tl\ invariably appears instead
of the old D, which has now finally disappeared
from the general English coinage. 6, on at
least four different dies, represents (and so may
possibly be an early form of) the round C. Latin-
ized money ers' names are common, and mono-
grammic letters are again plentiful. An attempt
at the moneyers' surname appears for the first
time on Norman coins, upon one or two examples
of this type.
As we have seen (page 87), William Fitz Otho is now
in office, and this is the first type for which he is solely
responsible, hence the usual novice's blunders and vari-
ations in the King's name. 1
The obverse of this type is adapted from that of the last,
and the reverse from that of the curious variety, Fig. Q,
described on page 75, each with a difference. That
this is the last type of the reign is quite clear from the
1 The British Museum has an ancient MS. copy of Henry's
Charter, addressed to Richard Bishop of London, 1108 1129,
andAlberic de Vere, (died 1141), probably the Sheriff, granting
to William Fitz Otho his office, and all his lands and tenements
within London and without, for performing thenceforth the
offices which his father Otho Aurifaber had. The date of this
Charter is ascertained by the entry in the 1129 30 Pipe Roll,
mentioned on page 87, for the fees there debited were in
return for it as relief to the crown upon Fitz Otho's succession.
Charta Antique Lond., Y, 17.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. O
98 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
facts that the Watford, Nottingham, Dartford, and Linton
finds, though mainly composed of Stephen's coins, disclosed
numerous examples of it, and that the last three named
contained no other type of this reign. But its position has
already been demonstrated under the previous type.
Of the above finds, the Battle, Wallsop, Watford, and
Nottingham have already been discussed, so a word or two
upon the others will complete the list. For an account
of the Dartford or " Kent " hoard we are again indebted
to Mr. Rashleigh in Num. Chron. xiii, p. 181. It was
discovered in 1826, and contained about sixty coins all
of the time of Stephen, with the exception of four of
this type. The Linton (near Maidstone) discovery of
1883 is described by Mr. Wakeford in the Numismatic
Chronicle for that year, and comprised some 180 pennies,
cut half-pennies, and farthings. Not more than a dozen
were of this type, and the remainder were all of Stephen's
reign. Mr. G. F. Hill has supplied particulars of the
Ashby- Wolds find of 1788 for the purposes of these notes,
from an account of its discovery in that almost inaccessible
work, Nichols' History of Leicestershire. Nichols is not
very explicit when he tells us that, of the 450 silver coins
found, almost all were pennies of King Stephen, except a
few of Henry I, Henry II, and Henry III ! Coins of the
latter reign are, of course, impossible in such a find, and
a reference to his plates only discloses this type and two
types of Stephen, but perhaps the mistake is due to the
confusion existing in the eighteenth century as to the
proper attribution of the coinage of the three Henrys.
This type was still in circulation during the most
troubled years of Stephen's reign, when so many hoards
would be buried for safety, and so to-day it is as plentiful
as all the other types of Henry's reign put together.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 99
Another cause, however, may be that, as Henry at his
death left in his treasury at Winchester " coin estimated
at one hundred thousand pounds, and that of the best
quality" (Malmesbury), it would, for some time after
Stephen's accession, be the chief medium of exchange.
Coin in the King's treasury would, we may assume, be
kept up to the latest type, so that it might always be
current upon an emergency.
That these coins are neither pleasing to look at nor
easy to read is not "William Fitz Otho's fault, for his
design is good, but is due to the moneyers' wretched
system of careless striking, or of first striking them in
a round collar and then roughly clipping them down in
weight to the bare margin of tender. Refer for example
to the specimen engraved in Num. Chron. xii. No. 7, which
is octagon, or rather square with the corners cut off, the
result being that there is not one letter visible upon it!
Although six or seven hundred coins of this type have
been noted or examined for this work, the number of
different mints upon them does not exceed twenty-one.
Yet seventy-three coins of type 265 furnish twenty-two
mints, and one hundred and thirty-five coins of type 262
thirty mints. Therefore it is evident that if more than
twenty-one mints had been coining between 1131 and
1135, we must have had specimens of them out of the
overwhelming proportion of the coins of this type.
Varieties. None.
This completes the descriptions of the various types of
Henry I, and it will be noticed that Hawkins 259, 260,
261, X and XII, are not included. Although sub-divided
by Hawkins into five types, they are really but two and
their varieties. There are, however, others of the same
100 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
class, although some twenty coins in all complete the
whole series. Upon them the letters "W" and SH are
not only firmly established, but are almost invariably used.
Hence, as we have seen, their issue could not have been
prior to type 262 (11281131), when the former letter
was introduced, and therefore, as the Watford find con-
tained altogether more than eleven hundred coins issued
between 1128 and some time early in Stephen's reign,
and yet only contained the two last types of Henry I, it
is impossible to believe that any of the coins of this series
were then in circulation. Otherwise a stray one at least
would have appeared. Moreover they have never been
found except with the coins of Stephen's reign. But, as
it is always easier and more satisfactory to prove an
affirmative than a negative, it may be sufficient to say
here that the appropriation of these coins will be dealt
with in a general work upon the Norman coinage.
CHAPTER VII.
HISTORY OF THE MINTS AND THEIR COINS.
IT is hoped that, by a few lines of historical introduction
to each mint, some idea of the importance of the towns in
those days may be gleaned, for their condition now is no
criterion of what it was in the days of Henry I. The
population of the whole kingdom, according to Sir Henry
Ellis, did not then exceed two millions, and probably most
of it was centered around the principal towns.
With the exceptions of York, Durham, and Carlisle, all
the mints were south of a line drawn from Chester to
Lincoln, but including those two important cities. It
does not, however, follow that all the principal cities and
towns were places of mintage, for the privilege of coining
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 101
was granted rather as a matter of favour to the applicant
than with any regard to the exigency of the people.
Thus the cities of Coventry, Ely, Lichfield, and Sher-
borne had then no money of their own, and even the
wealthy abbots of Abingdon never received the favour.
It will be noticed that the dates of most of the types
appear to overlap each other, but this is not so in reality,
but merely owing to the fact that the exchequer year
then ended on September 29th, and therefore most of the
types were probably changed in tjie autumn, and so the
same year is given to two types. This is borne out by
the evidence of the Reading writ, quoted on page 28,
which required the dies to be delivered " within fifteen
days of the feast of St. Martin at the furthest." In 1180
Henry II's new coinage was " made current on St. Mar-
tin's day ; " but in consequence of the Inquisition of
Christmas, 1125, type 265 probably commenced in
January, 1126.
The records of many hundred charters have been con-
sulted during the compilation of these notes, but only
those will be quoted which are requisite to fill in a gap in
the history of a mint or its grantee. For instance, if the
grantee of a mint is presumably in England or Normandy,
as the case may be, during a certain year, it is unneces-
sary to prove it ; but in the absence of other evidence our
charters often supply this information.
Unfortunately, most of the Norman charters are un-
dated, but, as we have seen under type 251, page 47, in
the instance of Otho Fitz Otto's grant, the date can
usually be ascertained from internal evidence.
For convenience of alphabetical reference to the
moneyers, the reverse legend is placed first in the follow-
ing lists of coins.
102 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
ATLE.
" ATLE " is given in Ruding's list of Henry's mints,
but as he offers no further information about it, and as
there does not seem to be any coin to support the reading,
we may assume that it must have been taken from a Canter-
bury coin of type 251 or 254, reading "CXEE HTLE," for
ON ENTLE, as the N and A were at that period usually
represented by H or II, and the arms of the E in the
monogram 1C were probably either obliterated on the
coin or overlooked. Compare PI. II. No. 1.
BAENSTAPLE (DEVONSHIRE).
BAENASTAPULA, BEAKDESTAPLA, BEEDENESTAPLA ; Domesday,
BABNESTAPLE; Exon. ditto, BAEDESTAPLE and BAENESTAPLE;
Pipe Eoll, BEBDESTAPLA ; Charters, BARNESTAPLA, etc. ;
Tower Records, Ed. I., BEEDSTAPLE; Colloquially, BAEUM.
The origin of Barnstaple is unknown, but it has been
suggested that its familiar name Barum may,like that of Old
Sarum, have survived to us from the days of the Romans.
Its position as the maritime port of North Devon for the
wool and mineral products of the surrounding country
must have rendered it a thriving market, or staple, in
early Saxon times, and that it was a place of some im-
portance in the first half of the tenth century, is supported
by an ancient tradition that Athelstan drove the Danes
over the Tamar, and abode in his palace at Barnstaple.
This is probably true, as it would constitute the town a
royal burg, and explains the passage in Domesday, " King
Edward (the Confessor) had the burg of Barnstaple." The
mound of the castle, too, dates from at least that century.
About the same time the episcopal See of Devon was dis-
sociated from that of Sherborne, and for a short period,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY 1. 103
prior to its translation to Crediton, located at Bishops
Tawton, two miles from the gates of Barnstaple.
1067-8. The Burg suffered in the Devonshire rising, and
23 houses seem to have been laid waste. William
appointed Judhel de Totnes castellan, and gave him
the Honour of Barnstaple, including Totness and
Lydford. He founded the Norman castle.
1086. Domesday notes. In King Edward's time, the
King had the burg. Now there are 40 burgesses
within and 9 without who pay 40s. to the King and
20s. to the 1 ishop of Coutances. There are 28 houses
laid waste since the King (William I) came into
England. The King has the burg ; the Bishop ten
burgesses paying 45 pence ; and Baldwin the Sheriff
has seven burgesses. The mill renders 20s., of
which the Bishop has a share. The mint is not
mentioned.
William II gave the Honour of Barnstaple to Roger de
Novant.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Wido de Novant, presumably
the heir of Roger de Novant, is paying quittance for
a [? confirmation] grant of the fair at Totness and cer-
tain fees in respect of a claim against his lands brought
by Johell Fitz Nigel, probably the grandson of Judhel.
It is to Mr. L. A. Lawrence, in the Numismatic
Chronicle, 1897, that we are indebted for the correct
appropriation of certain coins of a mint commencing
BARD or BEARD to this town.
They comprise the reigns of Ethelred II, Canute,
Harold I, Edward the Confessor, William I II, and
Henry I.
At some date in the Saxon period the burgesses of
Barnstaple, Totness, and Lydford, must have obtained a
charter of privileges in return for the supply of a ship or
contribution to an expedition of the King when required,
for so it is elsewhere recorded in Domesday. Messrs.
Stevenson and Napier, too, confirm this by the evidence of
the burg-mtan at Beardastapol being mentioned in 1018
(see " The Crawford Charters "). Thus we may infer that
104 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
up to the date of the Conquest Barnstaple was a royal
burg, fanned to the burgesses, upon certain customs and
a rent of 40s. to the King, and 20s., the " third penny "
of the town, to the Bishop of Coutances.
The fact that Barnstaple, Totness, and Lydford were
rated together to contribute the ship, coupled with the
coincidence that the mints of Barnstaple, Totness, and
Lydford all commence in the reign of Ethelred II, use
the same types and interchange their moneyers, and sup-
ported by the evidence that Barnstaple had already its
burg-icitan within two years of that king's death, strongly
suggests that charters of privileges had been granted to
the three towns by Ethelred II. They evidently included
the right of coinage to each, as was the case in the very
similar instances of those seaports which were subsequently
known as the Cinque Ports ; and these conditions seem to
have continued until the time of the Conquest.
William did not confirm these charters, as it is evident
from Domesday that he granted the tertius denarius of
the burg of Barnstaple to Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop
of Coutances (see pages 119-123). This would include
the lordship of the manor and the mint. But although
the Bishop nominally retained the tertius denarius, he
seems to have released his lordship in favour of one of
his knights, for King William granted the Honour of
Barnstaple, including Totness and Lydford, to Judhel, or
Joel, Fitz Alured of Totness, and so the three mints fell
under one hand. Hence it was not likely that Judhel would
continue the expense of three so near together when the
supply of one was sufficient. He therefore discontinued
that of Lydford altogether, but coined intermittently at
either Barnstaple or Totness, but never contemporaneously
at both places.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 105
Judhel is said to have been, banished by Rufus for
some unrecorded offence, but he would, no doubt, be
concerned in his lord, Geoffrey de Mowbray's, rebellion of
1088. The head of Judhel's house was Geoffrey de
Mayenne, who also, in 1088, revolted against Rufus in
Normandy ; this probably led to Judhel's fall.
William II then granted the Honour to Roger de
Novant ; who, however, does not seem to have ever exer-
cised the privilege of coining here. From the Pipe Roll
one gathers that he had died a few years before 1129-30,
and for reasons" presently given the date must have been
about 1123.
Henry I is always credited with having incorporated
Barnstaple, but what he did was to restore its Saxon
privileges. The evidence of his charter to the burgesses
is to be gleaned from one of Henry II, in which the King
confirms to the burgesses
" all the rights and customs which they had in the time of my
grandfather, King Henry, I having removed all the bad customs
after my grandfather there arisen. Know ye that they have the
customs of London, and so testify before me that they and the
barons of London so freely, honourably, and justly have the
same as ever they better had in the time of my grandfather."
The customs of London will be referred to under that
mint, but the reference to them riot only shows that
Henry I had granted a charter to Barnstaple conferring
the greatest civic rights of the age upon its burgesses,
but that the charter to Barnstaple must have been subse-
quent to the death of Roger de Novant, for Henry could
not grant what was Roger de Novant's during his life.
Thus the Barnstaple charter must have been dated
after, say, 1123.
The 1130 Pipe Roll tells us that Wido de Nunant
(Novant), no doubt as heir to Roger, paid 10 for a
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. P
106 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
judgment in his favour as to the land which Johell Fitz
Nigel claimed against him and ten marks of silver for a
(confirmation) grant of the fair at Totness. Hence we
know that Roger de Novant was then dead and that some
time at least had elapsed since his death. These entries
must have referred to Totness alone, for the King himself
had resumed possession of Barnstaple, as, by a charter
granted at Perriers [in 1125], he gave the mill and its
tolls, with other property at Barnstaple, to the Priory.
As type 265 (1126-1128) now appears from the Barn-
staple mint, we may very i'airly conclude that the charter
to the Priory, the charter to Wido de Novant, and the
charter to the burgesses of Barnstaple were all granted
after the death of Roger de Novant and in 1125, and that
the burgesses immediately availed themselves of their
ancient privilege of a mint.
The burgesses, however, evidently lost their rights at
some time before the reign of Henry II, for this is im-
plied by his charter and by the fact that the Roll of
1158 records that William de Braose paid to the exchequer
1,000 marks of silver for his part of the Honour of
Barnstaple. William de Braose in a charter calls himself
" grandson of Joel " i.e. Joel Fitz Nigel, not Joel de
Totness, as hitherto supposed, for too many years intervene
between the latter and de Braose. The claim of Joel
Fitz Nigel, referred to in the 1130 Roll, probably explains
the reason why the coinage of the burgesses ceased in
1128 as suddenly as it had commenced. His unusual
name suggests a relationship to Joel de Totness, and his
name appears as Joel de Barnstaple as early as in the
Foundation charter of Plympton Priory, about August,
1123. On the other hand, in the same charter Wido is
described as de Totness. Hence we may infer that Joel
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 107
Fitz Nigel claimed the whole Honour of Barnstaple,
including Totness and Lydford, and that prior to the date
of the Pipe Roll, say, in 1128, it was partitioned between
himself and Wido, as heir of Roger de Novant ; he receiv-
ing Barnstaple, and thus causing the revocation of the
charter to the burgesses, and Wido retaining his grant of
Totness as is evidenced by the Roll. This also explains
the reason why William de Braose, as heir to Fitz Nigel,
in 1158 claimed only a part of the Honour which had
formerly included Totness, and why there is no return for
Barnstaple in the 1130 Roll.
COIN.
frOTER ON BEEDESTA *fiENRIEVS 265
British Museum; from the Montagu Sale, 1897,
and the Hugh Howard Collection, 1874 (but
said to have been formed at the commence-
ment of "the last century "). OTER was
probably one of the family of that name
who were moneyers of Dorchester.
BATH (SOMERSETSHIKE).
BATHAN, BATHA, BATHONIA, BADUNUM ; Early Saxon, AKEMAN-
CEASTEE ; Domesday, BADE ; Pipe Roll, BADA.
That the early Britons held a stronghold in the neigh-
bourhood of Bath is certain, but its mineral springs would
be a far greater attraction to the Roman conquerors than
to them, and therefore its actual site was probably first
occupied by the latter. In like manner they founded
Buxton and Ilkley. The Roman fortifications of Bath
no doubt remained much as their builders left them, until
in 577 the Saxons stormed the city after the battle of
108
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Deorham. After the introduction of Christianity a nun-
nery was established here in the seventh century, which
was, however, replaced, a hundred years later, by a college
of secular canons, and at the close of the eighth century
Offa, King of Mercia, built, or rebuilt, the Church of St.
Peter.
But it is to Alfred and the men of Somersetshire, after
the expulsion of the Danes from the county, that the
revival of the importance of the city is due. That king
seems to have fortified it and placed a governor here, for
under 906 we have the curious passage in the Saxon
Chronicle, " In this year died Alfred, who was governor
of Bath." Here, in 973, Edgar was crowned in the
Church of St. Peter, and he greatly enriched the town
and monastery. But in 1013 Bath suffered at the hands
of Sweyn the Dane ; nevertheless it was a thriving burg
in the time of the Confessor.
The description of Bath in the reigns of Henry I and
Stephen, from the Gesta Stephani, is as follows :
" There is a city, six miles from Bristol, where the hot
springs, circulating in channels beneath the surface, are con-
ducted by channels artificially constructed and are collected
into an arched reservoir, to supply the warm baths (the Roman
baths) which stand in the middle of the place, most delightful to
see and beneficial to health. This city is called Batta, th'e
name being derived from a word in the English tongue which
signified bath ; because infirm people resort to it from all parts
of England for the purpose of bathing in these salubrious
waters ; and persons in health also assemble there to see the
curious bubbling up of the warm springs, and to use the baths."
(Forester.)
This might almost be a record of the days of the Regent.
1086. Domesday notes. In the time of King Edward the
King held Bath. Now the burg contains 178 bur-
gesses, of whom 64, returning 4, hold under the King,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 109
90 returning 60 shillings, under various feudatories of
the crown, and 24 under the Abbot of St. Peter's.
Six houses are laid waste and one destroyed. The
King has the burg and the mint renders 100 shillings.
1088. " Bath, a city of the King's," was plundered and
burnt by Robert de Mowbray. (Florence.)
1088-90. John de Villula translated the seat of the
Bishopric of Wells to Bath and founded the Norman
Cathedral, of which however there is hardly a trace
remaining.
1090 & 97. William II by charters granted "to God and
the Church of St. Peter in Bath and to John the Bishop,
and to his successors, all the City of Bath for the aug-
mentation of the revenue of the see ; for the good of
the soul of his father King William I and the souls of
his mother, of himself and of his ancestors and suc-
cessors. Together with the mint and other privileges."
Florence of Worcester with unintentional cynicism
explains that the Bishop bought the whole city for
500.
1101. Henry I confirms the above charters.
1102. Henry by charter " gives and confirms the city
itself and everything appertaining to the firma of the
said city together with the mint, &c.," to John the
Bishop.
1106. Bishop John, by charter, transfers the city and its
privileges to the Church of St. Peter.
1106. Easter. Henry holds his court here. (Sax. Chron.)
1122. December 29. Death of Bishop John. (Florence.)
1123. August 26. Geoffrey the Queen's Chancellor (or
chaplain according to some authorities) consecrated
Bishop of Bath.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Somersetshire is omitted from the
Roll. The learned Adelardus of Bath is mentioned.
Geoffrey the Chancellor owes 3,006 13s. 4d. for the
Great Seal for his appointment and is allowed
10 15s. Od. for 43 days' absence from the Exchequer.
Geoffrey the Chancellor, who was appointed Bishop
of Durham, -1133, was formerly believed to have been
the Bishop of Bath, but
1134. August 16. " Geoffrey, Bishop of Bath, died on the
17th of the calends of September ; after some interval
he was succeeded by a monk (of Lewes) named
Robert, a Fleming by descent, but born in England."
(Florence.)
110 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
The name of Bath first appears upon our coins in the
latter part of the reign of Alfred, arid continues through-
out all the Saxon reigns with the exceptions of those of
Eadmund and Harold II. It may, however, be noticed
here that although the name of a mint may not occur upon
coins of the Saxon kings prior to Ethelred II, it does not
follow that it was dormant, as certain types bear the names
of the moneyers only. For instance, a Bath moneyer's
name appears upon one of these types of Eadmund.
From before the accession of William I to, and inclu-
sive of, the date of Domesday 1086 it is quite clear
that Bath was " a city of the King's," and that in 1086 at
least there was a royal mint here in operation. Its
vicinity to the prolific mints of Bristol and Gloucester
the latter of which in Domesday paid a rent of 20 to the
King must have affected its output, and so in late Saxon
times we find only two moneyers' names at a time upon
its coins. This number was continued in the reign of
William I, and the mint paid a rent of only 5 to the
King.
But in Robert de Mowbray's rising of 1088 the city
was destroyed, and from that date the royal mint of Bath
ceases for ever. Therefore all the types bearing the
King's name WILLIAM that we have of this mint must
have been struck prior to that time.
In 1090 John de Villula commenced rebuilding the
city, choosing it for his episcopal seat in preference to
Wells. According to Domesday the Bishops of Wells
held that town by ancient charter and so there was a
precedent for the purchase or grant of Bath. In 1097
the whole city is granted to Bishop John and his suc-
cessors, and though the mint is mentioned, it is only
included in the general words of the charter conveying
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. Ill
all the King's rights and privileges within the city, and
the mere grant of the city alone would have been just as
effective, whether the mint was specially named or not.
As was necessary, according to the custom of the
period, Henry I confirmed and extended this charter
so likewise did King Stephen to the then bishop but we
have ample evidence that John de Villula never exercised
his privilege of coining during the whole of his life, for
otherwise, from a tenure of thirty years, some at least of
his coins must have survived to us. He had no mint at
Wells, and when he came to Bath the ruined city offered
little temptation for the undertaking ; in fact, with the
exception of the short revival about to be mentioned,
the mint was already an office of the past. Moreover,
his own charter of 1106 transferring his personal rights
under the charters to his Church suggests that, thoughout,
he viewed himself in the light of a mere spiritual trustee.
Bishop John died at the close of 1122, and in August,
1123, his successor Geoffrey was installed. A confirma-
tion charter must follow not precede the induction of
a bishop, and as Henry was then in Normandy, it would,
in this instance, have to await his return in September,
1126, for such charters appear usually, if not always, to
have been granted at the English courts. Its actual
date was probably either upon the occasion when " all the
bishops and nobles " swore fealty to Matilda the Empress
at the London court on January 1st, 1127 (Florence), or
when Bishop Geoffrey is specially mentioned as attending
the May court at Westminster in the same year.
Bishop Geoffrey took an active part in political life,
and he at once, after receiving his confirmation charter,
reopened the mint, for type 265 (1126-1128) is struck at
Bath. This is followed by the next in succession, 262
112
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
(1128-1131), and, according to a catalogue reading, by
255 (1131-1135), when upon the Bishop's death in 1134
and probably because it was found to be unprofitable, the
mint of Bath was closed for ever. This revival, too, was
but a small coinage, for we find the number of moneyers
at a time now reduced to one. A reduction in the
number of moneyers seems always to have followed the
conversion of a royal into a private mint.
When a mint was newly established, or revived after
being long dormant, it seems to have been necessary and
customary to temporarily borrow a moneyer from elsewhere
to organize the new work, for, as will be noticed in other
cases that of Carlisle, for instance the moneyer whose
name appears on the first type rarely issues the second.
It is so here, for PINTEELEDE, who struck type 265,
does not issue 262. Perhaps Bishop Geoffrey borrowed
him from his archbishop's mint, as he most naturally
would, when he met the Primate at the Synod of May,
1127, for we find PINIEDE1 probably contracted from
PIN[TER]LEDEI coining at Canterbury before this type
265 and immediately after it, but not during its issue.
Upon this system of introducing moneyers to revive a
dormant coinage, see particularly under Gloucester.
COINS.
frOSBERN: ON BAD:
Watford find.
. . . BERN . . BA .
Watford find.
262
EVS R 262
.J.PINTERLEDE : ON BAD A ^.IiENRIEVS: 265
British Museum ; Fig. U. From the Durrant
Sale, 1847, 2 11s. Od. As to the moneyer,
see above.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 113
^.PINTERLED : ON BAD A .frfiENKICVS E : 265
Engraved, Withy and Ryall, ii., 20.
The Tyssen Catalogue, 1802, contains 2 coins of . 265
At the Haines Sale, 1878, a coin of 255 (1131
1135) was described as "probably minted
at Bath." If this is correct the type would
be issued by Bishop Geoffrey, between 1131
and his death in 1134 probably early in
the limit.
BEDFORD.
BEDANFOED, BEDCANFORD, BEDICANFORD, BEDEFOEDA ; Pipe Roll,
BEDEFOBD.
Although prehistoric remains abound in the neighbour-
hood, we know little or nothing of the early history of
Bedford until the Saxon Chronicle records a victory of
Cuthvulf over the Britons at this place in the year 571.
Offa, King of Mercia, is said to have been buried here,
but the town does not seem to have attained its import-
ance until
In 919 " King Edward the Elder went with his forces to
Bedford and gained the town from the Danes and almost all
the townsmen who formerly dwelt there submitted to him. He
stayed there four weeks, and commanded the town to be built
on the south side of the river before he went thence." (Sax.
Chron.)
This rather implies that the Danes had destroyed the
old town, and in 1010 they again " came to Bedford,
ever burning as they went." Nor were its misfortunes
confined to Saxon times, for, as Camden says, " not one
civil commotion arose in the kingdom but what had a
blow at the castle of Bedford."
William I appointed Hugh de Beauchamp castellan of
Bedford.
1086. Domesday notes. In the Confessor's time and
now the burg contributed for half the Hundred in
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. Q
114 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
expeditions and ships (to the King's forces). The
land of the town never paid land tax, with the excep-
tion of one hide which lay in tithe to the Church of
St. Paul.
William II granted, or confirmed, the Honour of Bedford
to Payne, son of Hugh de Beauchamp.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The burg paid 4 8s. Od. auxi-
lium. Simon de Beauchamp accounts for 102 16s. 8d.
which is being paid by instalments for the security of
his Honour [of Bedford] "quern non habuit ad
rectum." [" hois " is the contraction used in the Roll
for both Honoris and hominis, but the payment is far
too large a sum to admit of the latter construction.
Pro recto or ad rectum occurs thirty or forty times in
the Roll, and yet it is invariably used in relation to
land alone. See p. 157.]
Although the name of this mint first appears on coins
of Eadwig, there is, as Mr. Grueber points out in the
Brit. Mus. Cat., evidence, by a comparison of its
moneyers with those of Eadred, that it had been in opera-
tion for some time at least previous to this reign. The
coinage was continued under each successive King until
the Norman Conquest, but the number of moneyers in
office at a time seems to have been gradually reduced
from three or four to two.
Although William I appointed Hugh de Beauchamp
castellan, and subsequently gave him the Honour and
barony of Bedford also, the burg seems to have been
farmed to the burgesses at the date of Domesday. The
Gesta tells us that Milo de Beauchamp, grandson of
Hugh, in 1138 claimed Bedford " by hereditary right,"
and as he was only nephew to Payne, who received a
grant of the Honour from Rufus, this term could not
apply to the second grant, for a title could no more
descend by right to a nephew then than it can now.
As the mint is not mentioned in Domesday, either
under the Confessor or under William, its privileges were
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 115
no doubt vested in the Saxon earls of Mercia during the
former reign, and in Hugh de Beauchamp under
William I.
Hugh seems to have died during the reign of
William II, leaving three sons, Robert, Payne, and
Simon. Hence the grant of the Honour of Bedford to
Payne was the usual and necessary charter of confirma-
tion upon his succession.
Although Payne succeeded to the English possessions,
he was probably the second son, for in nearly all cases
where the barons held estates both in England and Nor-
mandy, the eldest son took those in the latter country.
The succession to the crown of England even, then fol-
lowed this custom.
Robert de Beauchamp, Viscount of Arques, was there-
fore probably the eldest son, and he plays a somewhat
prominent part in the history of Normandy in the earlier
half of Henry's reign. Perhaps Payne was assisting him
and resident in Normandy, for English historians and char-
ters are silent as to his movements, and we have no Bedford
coins which can be assigned to his tenure of the Honour.
Payne must have died before 1129, or he would cer-
tainly have appeared in the 1130 Roll, and from it we
gather some light upon the succession. Simon, the third
son of Hugh, is owing large fees, now standing at
102 16s. 8d., of which this year he pays 33 6s. 8d.,
"pro plegio honoris sui quern non habuit ad rectum." From
this it would appear that he had a " breve de recto " from
the King, which was a writ of " right close " in cases
where lands were held by charter, but their title disputed.
Payne left no issue, so far as can be ascertained, and as
this payment is not entered under the " Nova placita "
portion of the Roll, and is being reduced by instalments,
116 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
we may presume that he died two or three years before
1129. And so, as we have coins of type 265 (1126-
1128), we may infer that the writ was issued during that
period, and the barony only then vested in Simon.
The dispute would be as to whether Milo de Beau-
champ, as eldest son of Robert the Viscount, who is now
dead, would succeed to the English estates, or Simon, the
younger brother of Payne. This seems proved to have
been the family feud, because, on the death of Simon a few
years afterwards, when King Stephen bestowed Bedford
on Hugh Beaumont " the Poor," as husband of Simon's
only child, Milo and his brothers, " the sons of Robert de
Beauchamp," took arms against him, and defended the
castle during a lengthy siege (see Orderic and the Gesta).
The entry in the Roll by no means proves Simon to
have been in England in 1129-1130, and, as he was
absent from the great council of Northampton in 1131,
and as we have no Bedford coins other than of type 265,
the presumption is that he, like his brother, spent his life
abroad ; with the exception, however, of the occasion of
his application for the writ of confirmation in his Honour.
He would then return to take seizin of his possessions and
no doubt issued type 265 in 1126-8. His name, too,
seems only to occur in one English charter, which is also
of about that date.
After so long a dormancy, it was necessary to obtain a
moneyer from another mint to revive the art of coinage
at Bedford, and in 1126-1128 Simon seems to have tem-
porarily borrowed EDEIEVS from Bristol. He would
naturally look to the west for a moneyer, as his cousin,
Walter de Beauchamp, was castellan of Worcester, and
held large possessions in Gloucestershire. He also claimed
the constableship of that city.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 117
With the exception of a coinage of Milo de Beauchamp
during his revolt against Stephen in 1138, the mint of
Bedford closes entirely with type 265 of Henry I.
COINS.
*EDR[IEVS] ON BEDEF : * [I\ENBIE]VS B: 265
British Museum. The reading of the mint is
quite clear, so it cannot be a Hereford coin.
As to the moneyer, see above.
fr ON BE . EFOR -frrxENRIEV . . 265
Eodleian Library. Mr. Nicholson and Mr.
Oman have contributed the readings of the
Bodleian coins.
The coin of type 267, engraved Euding, Sup.,
ii., 1, 6, queried by Hawkins to this mint,
is of Thetford.
BISES.
"BISES" is given in Ruding's list of mints. It is
taken from the coin, type 253, engraved Snelling, i. 15,
and Ruding, Sup., i. 7, reading, HENRI REX, rev.,
frOSBR : ON BISES. But both engravings are copied
from Withy and Ryall, ii. 11. As this plate was pre-
pared as early as 1756, much reliance cannot be placed
upon the accuracy of the engraver's reading, for in those
days the picture was the primary object, the coin the second.
Therefore any blank on the latter was guessed, or the
visible legend spread over it, until the twenty-six coins
of Henry I on the plate disclose no missing letter an
impossible result. (See also the similar instance of " RIE.")
It is true that the notorious John White was concerned
in supplying the specimens for Withy's plates, and so the
authenticity of the coins illustrated has always been
questioned. But it is only just to point out that it is
118 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
merely upon certain fabricated pennies of Richard I that
his character fell, and that not fairly, for over them, in
large type, was printed, " Imaginary coins of Richard the
First." It was Snelling and Ruding, therefore, who
blundered in republishing these imaginary specimens as
genuine ones. This at least can be said, so far as Henry I
and Stephen's coins are concerned, Withy's plates will
bear the closest scrutiny of money er and mint, and there
is no reason to question a single example, nor have we
many better engravings to-day.
The BISES coin seems to have been last heard of at the
Phare Sale in 1834, when it was assigned to Bicester.
But the simple explanation of it must be either that the
E in B[E]ISES (Bristol) was a blank, and so left out by
the engraver of the plate ; or, and this is more pro-
bable in view of the Phare Catalogue, the E was omitted
upon the die of the coin, just as the second letter is often
dropped at this period in ENTN (Canterbury), DFN
(Dover), 60PE (Gloucester), HSTIE (Hastings), 6PIE
(Ipswich), &c. A precisely similar instance occurs in a
coin of the next reign, reading, " ^.AEEFITl : ON BIS."
Oddly enough both coins have the colon similarly placed
before ON only, and in the latter case the usual second
colon and the E are obviously omitted for want of space
upon the coin.
The BISES coin must therefore be assigned to Bristol.
BRISTOL.
BRICGSTOW, BEICSTOWE, BRISTOW, BRESTOW ; Domesday,
BRISTOV ; Charters, BRISTOLL, BRISTOWA.
BRISTOL seems to have been a Roman port in the third
century, and Nennius calls it one of the principal cities of
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 119
the later Britons under the name of Cair-Britoc. It was
the Brig-stow or " place of bridge " of the Saxons, and
probably fell into their hands in 577, when they conquered
Gloucester, Cirencester, and Bath. Perhaps they de-
stroyed it in that year, as we hear little if anything of its
history until the reign of the Confessor, when the Saxon
Chronicle records that Earl Harold in 1052 sailed thence,
a fugitive, to Ireland. In 1063 Harold again sailed from
Bristol, but this time with the royal forces to subdue the
Welsh.
1067. " One of Harold's sons came with a fleet from
Ireland unexpectedly into the mouth of the river
Avon, and soon plundered all the neighbourhood. He
went to Bristol and would have stormed the town
but the inhabitants opposed him bravely." (Sax.
Chron.)
1086. Domesday notes. The burgesses give wbat
Bishop G. (Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Cou-
tances) has, twenty-three marks of silver and one of
gold in addition to the firma of the King. Bertune
(Barton) and Bristov returned to the King 110 silver
marks.
1088. "Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, held Bristol castle
in conjunction with his nephew and accomplice in
conspiracy and treason, Robert de Mowbray, a man
of military experience." (Florence.) This was in
Odo's rebellion, and the castle would then be the
Norman keep only. On its suppression Bristol fell
into the King's bands. In tbis rebellion Robert Fitz
Hamon and William de Warren (see Lewes) give the
King "useful aid even with arms and their counsels
against tbe common enemy." (Orderic.)
1090. In return for this support, Rufus grants Fitz
Hamon " bis mother's lands, of wbicb be bad dis-
seised bis brother Henry." (Orderic.) These included
Gloucester and Bristol, and lands in Gloucestershire,
Buckingham, and Cornwall. The three first named
were probably now united into " The Honour of
Gloucester."
1100. August 1. Fitz Hamon, at Winchester, endeavours
120 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
to persuade Rufus to abandon his fatal hunting
expedition.
August 5. Witnesses Henry's letter to Archbishop
Anselm.
1101. Autumn. Declares for Henry (Malmesbury) and
1102-3. Witnesses Henry's charter to Rochester and his
Christmas charter at Westminster.
1104. Espouses Henry's cause in Normandy. (Orderic.)
1105. Early in the year is captured by Duke Robert's
forces at Sicqueville and imprisoned at Bayeux.
(Wace.)
Easter. Is released by Henry, who burns Bayeux.
(Orderic. )
Shortly afterwards he is struck in the forehead by
a lance at the siege of Falaise, loses his reason, and
dies, March, 1107. He left an only daughter, Mabel,
then a minor and ward of the Crown.
1121-3. " It is certain," says Mr. Round, in Geoffrey de
Mandeville, " that Robert Fitz Roy received the earl-
dom of Gloucester between April May, 1121 and
June, 1123." Malmesbury says, "whom he (Henry)
had created Earl of Gloucester, bestowing on him in
marriage, Mabel " (daughter and sole heiress of Fitz
Hamon).
1121. Henry holds his Easter court at Berkeley, in the
Honour of Gloucester (Huntingdon). Perhaps this
was the occasion of Robert's installation in the
Honour as husband of Mabel, to be followed by the
creation of his earldom at the Great Witan specially
held at Gloucester on February 2nd, 1123.
1123. June. Robert accompanies Henry to Normandy
(Simeon of Durham) and besieges Brionne.
1126. September. He probably returns with Henry, for
" 1126, the King caused his brother Robert to be
taken from Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, and delivered
to his son Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and he caused
him to be removed to Bristol and put into the castle."
(Sax. Chron.)
1127. January 1. At Westminster, Earl Robert contests
precedence with Stephen, afterwards King, in swear-
ing allegiance to the widowed Empress Matilda as
Henry's successor, and, in the spring, with Brian
Fitz Count, escorts her to Normandy for her marriage
with Geoifrey of Anjou. (Sax. Chron.)
1129. Michaelmas. Earl Robert has returned to Eng-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 121
land, for he and Brian Fitz Count receive and audit
the Exchequer accounts at Winchester. (Pipe Roll.)
1 1 30. Pipe Roll notes. Bristol does not appear in the Roll
perhaps because the city belonged entirely to the
Earl. The Earl receives enormous sums, for those days,
throughout the kingdom, including 20 for his [third]
part of the county. One entry under Kent (probably
inserted there because of the hereditary property of
Fitz Hamon in that county) seems to explain that
when Rufus disseised his brother Henry of " his
mother's lands " (see above, under 1090) in favour of
Robert Fitz Hamon, he charged the latter, and there-
fore now Earl Robert his successor, with an annual
payment from his Kent estates. It is, " Comes Gloces-
trice debet c m arg. de conventione quam Willelmus convnn-
iionaverat regi in Normania pro Comitatu."
1131. Septembers. Earl Robert is at the Northampton
council to take the second oath of allegiance to
Matilda, and witnesses the Salisbury charter.
1 133. Probably accompanies Henry to Normandy, as from
1133 to 1135 he administers the vacant see of Bayeux.
1135. December 1. He is present at Henry's death at
Lyons. (Orderic.)
So far as we can judge from our coins, Bristol was one
of the numerous mints granted during the reign of Ethel-
red II, The names of all his Saxon successors appear
upon its coins, and there seem to have been four moneyers
there at a time.
At the date of the Conquest, Bristol is said to have been
part of the lordship of the unfortunate Brihtric, Ealdor-
man of Gloucester, and so given to Queen Matilda. But
this must "be an error, as it is apparent from Domesday
that in the time of the Confessor it was a royal city
farmed to the burgesses. In return for material assist-
ance on the invasion, and for suppressing a revolt of the
English in the west, the militant Bishop of Coutances
Geoffrey de Mowbray received "two hundred and eighty
manors by grant from William for his share " (Orderic).
There is, however, an incidental note in Domesday, viz.,
VOL. 1. FOURTH SERIES. It
122 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
" when Roger (probably Roger de Pistres) received Bris-
tol." Thus it would seem that Roger de Pistres was
appointed castellan or sheriff immediately after the battle
of Hastings, but that, with Barnstaple, the city was
granted to Bishop Geoffrey, for he held it, and what was
practically its tertius denarius, until 1088. As Queen
Matilda died in 1083, it is quite possible that she held
Bristol in the interim.
The mint is not mentioned in Domesday, and as Bishop
Geoffrey held the whole city it would be included, and
therefore its rents and profits were his, and to have re-
corded them would have been to credit the King's revenue
with something which did not affect him one iota.
That Bishop Geoffrey did exercise the privilege of
coinage is proved by a considerable issue of coins from
'the Bristol mint at this period. In fact, the various types
of the Williams struck here correspond with the changes
of ownership of the city during their respective reigns.
In 1090, Robert Fitz Hamon received from Rufus the
city of Bristol as part of the Honour of Gloucester. He
was not created Earl of Gloucester, but the city and mint
of Bristol were granted to him with the Honour in like
manner as about the same period the city and mint of
Chichester were granted to Roger de Montgomery, with
the Earldom of Shrewsbury, and the town and mint of
Lewes to William de Warren with the Earldom of Surrey.
The general words of a charter granting a city or town
included every right and privilege which the King or his
predecessors, or the former owner, held in it, and so
whether a mint happens to be mentioned or not, unless
specially excepted, it passed with the town. See, for
instance, the wording of Henry I's charter under Col-
chester, p. 160.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 123
Robert Fitz Hamon certainly issued two or three types
here under Rufus, and was in England at that King's
death. On Henry's accession Fitz Hamon' s position was
a delicate one. He had been the personal friend of Rufus,
and we are told wept over his corpse at Winchester.
Moreover, he unfortunately held the estates of which
Henry had been deprived. To quote Orderic :
" 1090. Henry was then at variance with King William in
regard to his mother's lands in England, which his brother
had taken from him and granted to Robert Fitz Hamor."
Thus Henry must at first have viewed Fitz Hamon
with considerable doubt and suspicion. It is therefore
unlikely that the King granted him his confirmation
charter at once. But in the autumn of 1101, Fitz Hamon
was one of the few Norman barons who declared for
Henry upon Duke Robert's invasion, and subsequently
when peace was arranged there can be little doubt that
he was high in the royal favour, as he represented the
King in the 1103 Treaty with Earl Robert of Flanders,
and would have received his charter as a matter of course.
This will bring us to the year 1102, and may account for
the fact that type 251 (1100-1102) does not appear in the
subjoined list of Bristol coins.
During 1102 and 1103 Fitz Hamon is in England, and
we have type 254 (1102-1104) represented on the Bristol
coins. He is still here during the greater part of 1104,
and type 253 (1104-1106) is represented by a single coin
of this mint. But now Fitz Hamon's life, so far as
England is concerned, closes, and the Bristol mint is sim-
ultaneously discontinued, and lies dormant for a period of
seventeen or eighteen years. He sailed to Normandy
towards the end of 1104, and after a disastrous military
career was wounded, and lost his reason in 1105, only
124 NUMISMATIC CHft02S f ICLE.
to linger till March 1107, when he died and his body was
brought to Tewkesbury Abbey for interment.
He left no son, but a daughter and sole heiress, Mabel,
who was a minor at that time and in the wardship of the
King, as were all feudal heiresses, whether daughters or
widows, in those days. In no instance do we find the privi-
leges of a mint exercised during the period when it is in
the King's hauds, by wardship or even, in the case of an
ecclesiastical benefice, between the death of one bishop and
the appointment of his successor, and so until the marriage
of Mabel, Fitz Hamon's daughter, and a confirmation
charter to her husband, coinage at Bristol or Gloucester
was impossible. Hence we have no coins struck at either
mint of any interim type.
We are told that Robert Fitz Regis was the eldest of
Henry's natural children, and that he was born before
his father came to the throne. As Henry was then only
thirty years of age, and Robert's name first appears as a
witness to a charter in 1113, he was probably born about
1095. Hence the old date 1109 assigned to the marriage
of Robert and Mabel Fitz Hamon is improbable. The
date now usually accepted is 1119, but both Henry and
Robert were then at the Normandy wars, and Mr. Round
leaves this an open question.
Robert's marriage, coupled with a confirmation charter
of the estates and privileges of Robert Fitz Hamon, would
give him the mints of Bristol and Gloucester, for Fitz
Hamon held both. Therefore both mints after many years'
abeyance reopen with type IV (1121-1123), which is
exactly the date of the creation of the Earldom.
Unless, therefore, Robert received two charters within
two years, which is not very probable, the missing charter
of creation of the Earldom must also have been that of
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 125
confirmation in Fitz Hamon's Honour after his marriage.
Fortunately, Mr. Round has deduced the date of this
Creation Charter to the period between April 1121 and
June 1123, which is remarkably corroborated by the
coins. May one suggest, therefore, that Henry held his
Easter Court at Berkeley in 1121, expressly to celebrate
this marriage, which perhaps was at the Abbey of Tewkes-
bury, built by Mabel's father ; and that the confirmation
charter created the Earldom of Gloucester, and was
granted at the Court at Gloucester held on February 2nd,
1123, which is within the limits of time so ably defined by
Mr. Round ?
Before the close of the issue of type IV, which was
probably about Michaelmas, 1123, Earl Robert left Eng-
land, so the next type 258, which was continued until
Christmas, 1125, does not appear at either the Bristol or
the Gloucester mint. He returns for a short visit about
September, 1126, and is expressly mentioned as being at
Bristol to receive the custody of Duke Robert of Nor-
mandy. It is now, therefore, that type 265 (1126-1128)
is issued at Bristol, but we have no corresponding coinage
at Gloucester. On January 1st following, he is at Henry's
Court at Westminster, and soon afterwards escorts his
half-sister to Anjou, so his visit to Bristol was probably
only for the above-mentioned special purpose, and did not
influence the Gloucester coinage.
From 1129 to 1133 he is resident in England, and types
262 (1128-1131) and 255 (1131-1135) appear on the coins
of both Bristol and Gloucester. Poor Chatterton was not
very far from the truth when he invented the record that
" Robert Rouse, Erie of Gloucester, had hys Mynte at
Brystowe, and coyned the best Monie of anie of the
Baronnes " !
126 NUMISMATIC CHKONICLE.
Coins were struck at Bristol in the succeeding reigns of
Stephen and Henry II, and the mint was in operation at
various intermittent periods until the reign of William III.
COINS.
*AILWA[ED ON] BEI : [*IiENE]IEVS EE 262
Watford find. AIL WARD = ALFJ7ARD, and
a moneyer of this name coined here in Saxon
times.
*EDR[IE]VS : ON : BEISTO : .frhENEIEVS E 265
Spink and Son (PI. VII, No. 3) ; from the
Montagu, 1896, and Marsham, 1888, Sales.
Possibly the Tyssen, 1802, Miles and Bru-
mell, 1850, coin.
This moneyer, as soon as the Bristol mint
became dormant in 1127, seems to have
gone to Bedford to revive the mint, and
struck the same type there. That mint was
discontinued about 1128, and we next find
him reviving coinage at Hereford in type
262 (11281131) ; where, however, he
remains coining 255 (11311135) and in
the reign of Stephen. That he is the same
person is the more likely as Milo, Constable
of Gloucester and Sheriff of the shire, was
at that time the King's Forester of Here-
ford, and afterwards Earl of the latter county
(see Bedford and Hereford).
OEDEIEJVS : ON : BEISTO *I\ENEIEVS E 265
Sale, May, 1873.
*6EEAYD ON:BEIST: ^fiENEIEVS E: 262
Engraved, Withy and Ryall, ii., 7 ; Snelling,
i., 23 ; and Ruding, Sup., i., 11 (see under
Lincoln).
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 127
ON BEI: ^.IxENEIEVS EEX AN IV
British Museum (PI. V, No. 12). The termina-
tion 16 almost invariably stands for ING,
e.g., SPETI[N]G, SPRAEI\ELI[N]6. Hert-
hing revived the coinage here after an
interval of about eighteen years ; so, as the
name was then Kentish, it is probable that
he came from the Earl's possessions in that
county.
ON BEIST: *I\ENEIEVS E 262
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University. [Mr.
George Macdonald and Dr. Young have
supplied a complete set of casts of this
section of the Hunter collection to assist this
work.]
. ON BEIS 255
Battle find.
.J.OSBE: ON BISES *I\ENEI EEX 253
See under BISES, p. 117.
ON . EIS .frlxENEIEVS : 255
Watford find. A Richard coined here in the
reign of Henry II, and was, perhaps, the
" Richard Aurifaber " mentioned in that
king's charter to St. John's Bristol. [As to
many of these readings of the coins of
Henry II, see Mr. Nathan Heywood's Coinage
of Henry Plantagenet.~\
^SEIPI ON BEISTO 254
Phare Sale, 1834. The moneyer's name appears
here as SPEIN under the Williams, and his
ancestors as SUPINE and SNEPINE under
the Saxons.
frSENPI ON BEISTO 254
Dymock Sale, 1848.
128
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
BE . . *I\ENKIEVS: 255
Watford find. TVREML (probably from
Danish ThVRKEL) continued to coin here
in Stephen's reign.
Webb Sale, 1894, 4 10s. Od. 254
Tyssen Sale, 1802 . .... 265
Brumell Sale, 1850, " from the Miles cabinet " 265
Powell Sale, 1877 . 255
BURY ST. EDMUNDS. See ST. EDMUNDSBUKY.
CANTERBURY (KENT).
CANT WAR ABYRIG, CANTERBYRIG, C^ENTWARABURH, DOROBERNIA ;
Domesday and Pipe Roll, CANTUARIA ; Charters, CANTER-
BERIA, &C.
" Canterbury was already famous in the time of the
Romans," says Camden. It was the Cair Ceint of
Nennius, the cradle of Christianity in England, the capital
of the Saxon kingdom of Kent, and the Metropolitan See
of all England. In 839, and again in 851, the city was
stormed by the Danes with great slaughter of the in-
habitants. In 1009 the city was again threatened by
them, but the people of East Kent bought them off by
payment of the enormous sum in those days of 3,000.
This only induced the Danes to return in the following
year, when they plundered and massacred the citizens,
and murdered the archbishop because he refused to
promise a second ransom.
1066. After the Battle of Hastings, Stigand, the Arch-
bishop, declares for Edgar Atheling, but subsequently
submits to William. He had been suspended by Pope
Alexander and so did not crown the King. (Orderic.)
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 129
1067. Ethelnoth, Governor of Canterbury, accompanies
William to Normandy. (Orderic.)
1070. The old Saxon Monastery is destroyed by fire. A
few years afterwards Lanfranc, the new Archbishop,
founds the Norman Cathedral.
1086. Domesday notes. In the Confessor's time there
were 51 burgesses paying rent service to the King,
and in addition 212 who had sac and soc, and three
mills. Then the city was worth 51. Now there are
only 19 burgesses paying rent service as [the houses
of] 82 are laid waste. Eleven being in [making]
the city fosse and others in erecting the castle. The
King has sac and soc from 212 burgesses. The three
mills return 108s. and the market 58s. The city is
assessed at 50, nevertheless he who holds it returns
30 in bullion and weight (? blanched) and 24 by
number. In addition to all this the Sheriff has 110s.
The mint is not mentioned.
1089. Death of Archbishop Lanfranc. The King retained
the see until
1093. Anselm is appointed Archbishop.
William II grants to Anselm a confirmation charter
with all the liberties and privileges which Edward the
Confessor gave to the Church of Canterbury. These
privileges are set out at length, and include those
"within the burg and without." (Foadera, but
erroneously dated 1087.)
" William Rufus (as it is in the register of St.
Augustine's Abbey) gave the City of Canterbury
entirely to the Bishops, which they had formerly held
only by courtesy." (Camden.)
1097. October. Anselm quarrels with Rufus and remains
in exile in Italy. Meanwhile the King confiscates the
revenues.
1100. September. Henry recalls Anselm, and confirms
William's Charter of privileges to him. (Monast.)
1101. Anselm supports Henry's cause against Duke
Robert. (Orderic. )
1103. Lent. Disagrees with the King as to the latter's
temporal powers over the Church, and subsequently
with the King's approval again goes to Rome.
(Florence.)
1104. Henry forbids his return and confiscates the
revenues of the See. (Wendover.)
1107. Anselm returns before August 4th. (Florence.)
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. S
130 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1109. April 21st. Death of Anselm. The King retains
the revenues for five years.
1114. April 26th. Ralph, Bishop of Rochester, appointed
Archbishop at Windsor. (Florence.) He receives
his charter of privileges. (Monast.)
1116. After the Nativity of St. Mary (September 8th)
Archbishop Ralph sets out for Rome. (Florence.)
Is taken ill on the way and " stayed nearly five
years in Normandy." (Orderic.)
1121. January 4th. He returns to Canterbury. (Orderic,
cf. Florence.)
1122. October 19th. Death of Ralph.
1123. February 2nd. William de Corbeil appointed Arch-
bishop, at Henry's court at Gloucester. (Florence.)
Visits Rome to receive the pallium, and Henry's
court, then in Normandy, on his return, but is again in
Canterbury on July 22nd. (Florence.)
1124. Late in the year again visits Henry's Normandy
court. (Florence.)
1125. April 12th. Has returned to Canterbury, but in
the autumn sets out for Rome. (Florence.)
1126 7. Christmas. Again in England, swears fealty of
the succession to Matilda and receives a grant of the
Castle of Rochester from Henry. (Florence.)
1180. May 4. Lanfranc's Cathedral now completed and
dedicated in the King's presence, who holds his court
here. (Florence, Saxon Chronicler.)
Pipe Roll notes. The firma of the city is returned
at 27 8s. lOd. by weight, and the auxilium at
7 14s. Od., but on the other side larger payments,
probably including these and other revenue of the
See, are made to the Archbishop. William de JEines-
ford (Aylesford) pays 9s. on account of the goods of
one man who was " disfactus " (the statutory punish-
ment of a moneyer). William de .ZEinesford had
previously been sheriff of Hertford and was now pro-
bably deputy sheriff of Kent.
Prior to 1135. Robert, Earl of Gloucester, had received
the Constableship of Canterbury Castle from his father
Henry I. (Orderic.)
The great antiquity of the coinage at Canterbury has
already been referred to under Chapter III, p. 17. By the
law of Athelstan the number of moneyers allowed to this
mint was increased to seven, namely, four for the King, two
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 131
for the archbishop, and one for the abbot (of St. Augus-
tine's) ; and, judging from our coins, this number seems
to have been maintained into the reign of "William I.
As appears by the 1093 charter, Edward the Confessor
had granted his rights in the city to the then archbishop,
and this will account for the absence of any reference to
the mint in Domesday. The expression, too, in the
Survey, " tarn qui tenet [civitatem] nunc reddit," &c.,
seems to corroborate this, as, from the context, it is scarcely
applicable to the Sheriff. Probably the Confessor's charter
had never been confirmed by the Conqueror to Lanfranc
(although he would coin under his ancient rights), and so
there was a doubt as to the legal ownership. But it is
at least evident that in 1086 whoever held the city paid
afirma to the King.
In 1093 Anselm is appointed, and it is submitted that at
some time between that year and January 1st, 1096, when
William, Bishop of Durham, one of the witnesses, died,
must have been the date of the great Canterbury charter.
Comparing it with what we know of William II's grant
of the city of Bath to Bishop John, the two are very
similar; and as John paid 500 for his charter, so
the King similarly claimed 1,000 from Anselm, which,
however, was refused (Wendover). The charter grants,
or rather confirms, to Anselm all the privileges which the
Confessor had already granted to his predecessors, and
seems to imply that these comprised the whole of the
King's rights within the city. This would of course
include the four moneyers, who were nominally the
King's ; and whether Camden refers to this or some other '
charter or record, he is quite justified in saying, " Rufus
gave the city of Canterbury entirely to the [archjbishops,
which they had formerly held only by courtesy." It did
132 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
not, however, follow that the archbishop employed them,
for no doubt he found the three ecclesiastical moneyers
amply sufficient for the striking of any amount of money,
and so reaped the more profit by reducing the number.
Although seven moneyers were coining here shortly
before, from this time to the end of the reign of Henry I
only three appear to do so at any one time.
The coinage, too, which had been practically con-
tinuous for a great length of time, is now changed, and
at once becomes intermittent. This is accounted for by
the absence of Anselm during his exiles. The only
difficulty is this : Did the Abbot of St. Augustine's
exercise his privilege of one moneyer during the
Primate's absence ? Seemingly he did upon one occasion,
but it is not unlikely that he invariably accompanied his
archbishop in exile, and usually upon his official journeys.
On Henry's accession Anselm is at once recalled, and,
Westminster tells us, " was entirely reconciled to the
King." He immediately received his confirmation charter,
and types 251 (1100-1102) and 254 (1102-1104) appear.
According to most of our historians Anselm again left
England in 1103, but this was with the King's ap-
proval, and he was not exiled until the following year.
The Abbot of St. Augustine's, therefore, would probably
remain in charge of the city, and continue to coin in the
interim, under his ancient rights, until 1104. To the
abbot, therefore, unless there is an error of a year in
the Chronicles and Westminster, in one passage, seems
to imply that Anselm went abroad in 1104 must be
'attributed the coins of type 253 (1104-1106), struck no
doubt in the year 1104.
From this date until the accession of Archbishop
Ralph in 1114, we have no Canterbury coins.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 133
Anselm returned in 1107, stricken by age and in-
firmity, and died early in 1109. Henry had revoked
his charter in 1104, and it is possible that he never
renewed it in this short period of nineteen months, and
no such renewal is recorded.
Between April, 1109, and April, 1114, the King held
the revenues of the see in his own hands, and therefore,
as this was no longer a royal mint, the invariable rule
applied, and no coins were issued.
On April 26th, 1114, Ralph was appointed archbishop
at Henry's court at Windsor^ and received his confirmation
charter about the same date. He at once issues type 267
(1112-1114), probably in the last few months of its
currency. This is followed by 266 (1114-1116) and 264
(1116-1119), but as he went abroad in September or
October, 1116, the single coin representing the latter
must have been struck early in its issue. From October,
1116, to January 4th, 1121 [1120 in the Chronicles, which
adopt March 25th as the commencement of the years],
Ralph remains abroad, so the intermediate type is absent,
and the next which appears at Canterbury is IV (1121-
1123), when he is once more within his diocese.
Archbishop Ralph dies in October, 1122, and "William
de Corbeil succeeds in February, 1123. Although
Archbishop William pays two short visits abroad, he is
in England during most of the currency of type 258
(1123-1125), which now appears. In the autumn of 1125
he, for the "second time, journeys to Rome, but returns at
Christmas, and remains in England during the remainder
of the reign. Hence types 265 (1126-1128), 262 (1128-
1131), and 255 (1131-1135), follow from Canterbury as a
matter of course.
It is probable that the Pipe Roll entry of 1129-30
134 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
accounting for 9s., now received for the goods forfeited on
the conviction of the man who was " disfactus," referred
to a conviction of the years 1126-1128. As previously
remarked, this term seems to be then specially used in con-
nection with the punishment of a moneyer. Therefore,
as the name of the moneyer " ED PINE " appears on type
265 (1126-1128) and then disappears, it is not unlikely
that he was the victim.
Subject to possible correction when the next reign is
dealt with, it would appear that the sole right of coinage
at Canterbury remained vested in the archbishops until
the time of John. That king, who was no friend to the
Church, by charter upon his accession revived three of
the royal moneyers here, and confirmed to the then arch-
bishop only his ancient right' to three moneyers ; which,
however, seems to have been the full number now employed
by the Church at one time. But the monopoly ceased, and
the profits were again divided between Church and State.
Coinage here was continued until the reign of Ed-
ward VI.
COINS.
EANT [fi]ENE . . 258
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
PL VI, No. 7. Engraved, Withy and Ryall,
ii., 15. Obv. A quatrefoil before the face.
ev . (jiONEANT" in the inner circle.
Withy's engraver has " imagined " the last
two letters of the moneyer's name into
AfiEHVAL. The next two coins, however,
prove the name to be A(G)fiEMVND.
This family had been moneyers at Lincoln
in Saxon times, and up to the year 1102, but
at no other place. Hence, as Archbishop
William was instrumental in the appointment
of Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln and had
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 135
consecrated him at Canterbury on July 22nd,
1123, it is not improbable that the Arch-
bishop obtained AGIxEMVND from that city.
See Lincoln.
frAGIiEMVND ON : EAN : .frliENE . EYS 255
Watford find ; 2 specimens.
CAN . RENEIE . . 255
F. Spicer. Mr. Spicer has contributed many
readings of the William coins and Norman
charters.
frEDPINE ON ENTN ^HNEEEXNI 251
J. G. Murdoch. (PI. II, No. 1.) From the
Whitbourn, 1869, 4 10s. Od. ; Marsham,
1885, 13 5s. Od. ; Montagu, 1896,
11 15s. Od., and probably Tyssen, 1802,
Sales. An EDJ7INE coined here for Canute
and Harold II and an ELDPINE, probably
this moneyer, for Eufus.
^.'EDPINE ON ENTN 251
Sale, June, 1855.
frEDPINE ON EATN 251
Sale, January, 1860.
^EDPINE ON EANTA * hENEIE VS E : 265
L. A. Lawrence. 20 grs. The moneyer was
probably son of the above. See page 134.
^EDPINE ON EANTA * IiENEIEVS K 265
British Museum.
.frGEEGOEI: ON Eft: *I\ENEIEVS: 264
British Museum. 18| grs. Engraved, Ruding,
Sup., i., 12. The name, Gregory, is simi-
larly spelt in the Rotuli Hundredorum, 1272.
136
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
frGRIM ON E7VN -frftENEIEVS E: 262
Engraved, Withy and Ryall, ii., 10 (corrected
from JOEIM, &c.), probably the coin en-
graved, Speed's Chronicle, 1611, p. 455, as
OEIM . . ON : S . . . Grim was a common
twelfth-century name, but Orim is unknown.
* OEIM. See .J.GEIM.
.frPEEIN ON EANT *HENEI EE+ 253
W. C. Boyd. 20 grs. (PI. II, No. 14). The
name PEEIN occurs in the twelfth and
thirteenth century Eolls, hence the first
letter is not J7.
ODBEET : DN EANTA ^.IiENEIEYS : 255
British Museum. From the Durrant Sale, 1847.
This moneyer continued to coin here for
Stephen. The position of the colons in his
name is unusual on English coins, though
common on Scotch of the period. They
were probably so placed to fill in a space
on completion of the legend and thus disclose
that the letters were not necessarily cut in
their literary sequence. Robert was probably
father of " 4-E066CE OF E" (E06SE
F1LIVS EOBEETI) who coined here for
Henry II.
*EODBE . . . N EAN)
Watford find. 6 specimens.
.... BEED : ON : EAN
Watford find.
255
255
EODBEET
Watford find.
EODBEE
Kennard Sale, 1892, from the Linton find.
. . . ET : ON EAN : * . . NEIEV .
Watford find^ 8 specimens.
255
255
255
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 137
DB ...... AN: fchENRIE
Major H. W. Morrieson.
RT : ON EA . 255
Spink and Son.
* . . DUE . . ON EAN *I\EN . . . VS 255
Royal Mint. Mr. W. J. Hocking has supplied
particulars of the coins in this collection.
I.SMIERNE ON ETW *EENRIEVSREX 251
Engraved, Withy and Ryall, ii., 5. This
money er coined as SIMIER for the Williams.
frWILLELMVS , N EAN
Kennard Sale, 1892. From the Linton find.
The moneyer continued to coin here in the
two following reigns.
255
frWILLELMVS
F. E. Bigge.
EAN:
22 grs.
frWILLEM : ON . ANT .... RIE
W. J. Andrew. From the Allen Sale, 1898.
Obv. Bust very large. Rev. Design
larger than usual and pellet in centre of the
cross.
. WIL . . M . . . . EANP . I\ . . RI . . .
Watford find.
* PINEDA ON ENTLE * HENRI RE
W. J. Andrew. The family of this name
(variously spelt) had been coining here since
the days of Canute. (See Bath.)
frPINEDEI : ON ....
Bari find, Italy.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. T
255
255
255
254
267
138 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
frPINE . . I . . . . ISP *I\ENEIEVS BE ... IV
FitzWilliam Museum, Cambridge. Mr. F.
Jenkins has contributed readings and casts
of the coins in the Cambridge Museums.
ON EANDP .ffiENEIEVS E 262
W. S. Lincoln & Son.
* PINEDA ON EANDP -frhENKIEVS E 262
British Museum.
4-PINEDAI : ON : EANTVA .frhEN . . EVS : 255
L. A. Lawrence. 21 grs. (PL VII, No. 12.)
From the Allen Sale, 1898, and probably
Tyssen, 1802.
frPINEDAI ON EANT 255
Lewin Sheppard Sale, 1861.
*P ..... I : ON EANTVA . I\E . . IEVS 255
British Museum. Engraved Ha\vkins, 255.
AI ON EAN .... EIEVS 255
Watford find.
^PVLFEIE ON ENT .frHNEI EEX NI 251
British Museum. From the Durrant Sale, 1847.
The moneyer coined here for the Williams.
*PVLFPINE ON : EAN ifrhENEIE EEX 266
;C. M. Crompton Roberts. 20 grs. From Sale,
March 1894. The obverse does not show the
hand pointing. A PVLFPINE coined here
for the Williams.
FPIN ON EAN 255
Watford find.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 139
J.PVLSI ON ENTLEI *hENRI BEX E 253
British Museum. From the Montagu 1896
Sale. The great Cardinal at first spelt his
name Wulsey.
ON EAN . . . NEIE . . 255
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
Tyssen Sale, 1802. 8 specimens .... 255
,, ,, 1 specimen . . . .IV
The coin of type 256, queried by Hawkins to this
mint, is of Thetford.
CARLISLE (CUMBERLAND).
C^BLETE, CABLEOLIUM, CARDOYL, LUGUBALIA ; Pipe Roll,
CHAERLEOIL and CAERLEOLIUM ; Charters, CARLIOLUM, &c.
According to Nenuius, " Cair-lulid " was one of the
thirty- three later British cities, and we know that it
was one of the principal northern strongholds of the
Romans. Their walls were still standing when in the
seventh century Egfrid, King of Northumbria, gave the
town to St. Cuthbert, whence it subsequently became
part of the See of Durham. In 875 it was devastated by
the Danes, who left it a heap of ashes and ruins, and such
it remained until after the Norman Conquest.
1092. "The King (William II) went into Northumbria
and restored the city which is called in the British
tongue CAIELEU and in Latin LUGUBALIA, and
built a castle there ; for this city, like some others in
that quarter, had been laid in ruins by the heathen
Danes two hundred years before, and had been unin-
habited up to this time." (Florence and cf. Wen-
dover under 1093.)
Rufus commenced the Norman keep and appointed
Walter (probably Walter Fitz Gilbert de Clare) cas-
tellan.
1122. Henry I ordered a wall to be built round the
town. (S. of Durham.)
140 NUMISMATIC CHRoMC'I.E.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Carlisle is in the Royal Manor.
The burgesses are allowed 14 16s. 6d. and 6 2s. Od.
towards building the wall round the town. William
Fitz Baldwin (probably Fitz Gilbert) seems to have
been castellan, as he farmed the " gardinnm " of the
King at Carlisle and payments are imde to the garrison.
The Canons of St. Mary receive benefits. The "bur-
gesses of Carlisle " account for one hundred shillings,
the previous year's rent of the silcer mine, but " Wil-
liam and Hildret " owe forty pounds for the current
year's rent of it, Hildret had been Sheriff, but his son
Odard had now succeeded to that office.
1138. Henry established a new bishopric at Carlisle and
appointed Athelwulf, prior of St. Oswald's, Bishop.
Athelwnlf immediately placed regular canons in the
church and " conferred many honours upon it " (cf.
Torigni, Wendover, &c,).
1133. "At this time also a vein of silver had been dis-
covered at Carlisle whence prospectors (" inves-
tigatores "), who sought it in the bowels of the earth,
paid in royalties to King Henry five hundred pounds
a year." (Torigni.)
Thus in forty years Carlisle, phoenix-like, rose from its
ashes to be the See of a bishopric, a royal manor held by
castle*guard, and the centre of the principal silver mines
in England. Prior to Henry's reign we have no coins of
this town, but now at some period the privilege of coining
is granted, and it is not very difficult to surmise when.
The Honour of Carlisle was held by Ralph de Meschines
until 1120, but upon his succession to the Earldom of
Chester in that year he surrendered it to the King,
and it thus became a royal manor (see the Wetherall
Chronicle and Charters). In 1122 Henry visited Durham,
and prior to that date, owing probably to the disfavour of
Ranulf, bishop of that city, there had also been no coinage
at Durham, for it is unlikely that any confirmation charter
of the Palatine rights up to that time had been granted
to the bishop by Henry. Nor, in fact, had any coins been
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENKY I. 141
issued, except from the mint of York, in the whole of
Northumbria. Thus, as the " Dialogue of the Exchequer "
explains :
" Certain counties from the time of King Henry I, and in the
time of King Henry II, could lawfully offer for payment (in
taxes) coins of any kind of money provided they were of silver
and did not differ from the lawful weight ; because indeed, by
ancient custom not themselves having moneyers, they sought
their coins from all sides (Scotland) ; such are Northumber-
land and Cumberland."
The expression in the 1130 Roll, "burgesses of Car-
lisle," shows that at some time prior to that date they
had received a charter of incorporation, and as Henry's
direction to build the town wall was coincident with the
date of his visit to Durham, we may take it that in
response to a petition, he then granted a charter to them
upon that condition. Now follows the discovery of the
silver mine. It will be noticed that Robert de Torigni
uses the past tense in speaking of this under the year
1133, after recounting the establishment of the See, and
the Pipe Roll clearly shows that the mine had been
worked as early as 1128-1129, for arrears of royalties are
paid for that year. That the mine only commenced its
output about 1128 seems inferred from the fact that its
royalties were only 5 in that year, 40 in the next, and
500 in 1133. Not only because it was within a royal
manor, but by ancient custom the mine was the King's,
and up to 1129 it would appear to have been farmed to
" the burghers of Carlisle," but in that year Hildret, the
late sheriff, and " William," had it. It is probable that
only now, in 1129, when the rent springs from 5 to 40,
the Royal mint is established, and that the mint and mine
were farmed together to Hildret and William under charter
from the King, for in 1157-58 the Pipe Roll tells us that
142
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
William Fitz-Erembald paid 100 marks of silver for rent
of the mine, and in the 1 163-64- Roll he is styled " William
Monetarius." This William ceased to farm it in 1179, so
it is just possible that he was the " William " of 1130.
The coins of Carlisle, therefore, commence with type
262 (1128-1131), but only upon one of this type is the
moneyer's name discernible : it is DUEANT. A DUEAN
family coined at York in Saxon times, so as the name
only appears at Carlisle on the first type, it is not unlikely
that Durant was merely sent from York for a short period
to establish the new venture. He, or his son, is pro-
bably the Durant who held lands at " Coteby," mentioned
in Henry II's charter to St. Mary's, York. After him,
however, we find the name of EEEBALD on the next type,
255 (1131-1135). He is, of course, the EEEMBALD just
mentioned, and we find his name upon the coins from now
to about the middle of Stephen's reign. Then WILLIAM
[Fitz-EEEMBALD] appears, and continues the coinage into
the reign of Henry II. So we have an unbroken sequence
of father and son coining at Carlisle from 1131 to 1179,
not only recorded upon our coins but certified by our
records. Thus the mint was allowed but one moneyer at
a time, and that moneyer, in Henry II's reign at least,
worked the silver mine. Coinage here was continued
until the reign of Henry III.
S EE 262
COINS.
^.DVEANT : ON : EAELI :
J. G. Murdoch. (PI. VII, No. 6.) From the
Montagu, 1896 (10 10s. Od.) Martin, 1859
(5 15s. Od.); Murchison, 1864 (6 6s. Od.);
April, 1873, and Brice collections. It is
said to have been Mr. Cuff's, but it does not
appear in his catalogue. As to this moneyer,
see above.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGX OF HENRY I. 143
ON EARLI 262
Dean of St. Patrick's Sale, 1842.
[*E]REB[ALD : O]N : EAE 255
L. A. Lawrence. 22 grs. From Sale, Decem-
ber, 1891. As to this moneyer, see p. 142.
CHESTER.
LEIGECEASTER, LEICESTER, LEEESTER, LEHECESTER, LEGACESTER,
CESTER ; Domesday, CESTRE ; Pipe Roll, CESTRIA.
From the time of the Roman conquest of Britain to the
wars of Charles I, Chester seems always to have had the
honour, or misfortune, of a prominent position in the
internal military history of England. According to Nen-
nius it was the Cair Legion of the later Britons. In 607,
the Saxon Chronicle records that "Ethelfrith led his army
to Chester, and there slew numberless Welshmen (Britons)
.... also two hundred Druids," The same authority tells
us that in 894 the Danes fled before Alfred and Ethelred
to " a western city in Wirheal (Wirrall), which is called
Legaceaster, and thence into Wales." It is described as a
fortress, and Florence adds that it was at that time de-
serted, but in 908 "the city called in the British
tongue Karlegion, and in the Saxon Legeceaster, was
rebuilt by order of Ethered the Ealdorman and Ethel-
fleda." Accordingly, as the Saxon or Danish authority
was for the time uppermost in the north, Chester was
taken and retaken, and when the Danish struggles were
over, it was ever an object of assault to its ancient pos-
sessors, the Welsh Britons.
1066. Harold's widow retires here.
1070. Chester, the last city to stand out against William,
is taken by him and the country ravaged. (Orderic,
&c.) He founds the castle. (Orderic.)
144 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1071. Earldom of the County Palatine with titular sove-
reign rights granted to Hugh d'Avranches.
1075. See of Lichfield translated here.
1081. Earl Hugh witnesses the St. Edmundsbury charter.
1082. Witnesses one of the Durham charters. (Fcedera.)
1086. Domesday notes. In the time of the Confessor
431 houses paid tax and in addition the Bishop had
56. The city then paid 10 marks of silver, but after-
wards a firma of 45 and 3 martin skins, two-thirds
to the King and one-third to the Earl (Gherbod).
Every hide in the county contributed a man to repair
the walls or bridge.
"In the time of King Edward there were 7
moneyers in the city, who paid 7 to the King and
Earl, beyond their firma (rent), when the money was
changed'"' " Quando moneta vertebatur."
When Earl Hugh received the city it was not worth
more than 30, for it was greatly wasted. There
were 205 fewer houses than in King Edward's time
(destroyed by William in 1070). " Now 1086
there are only as many as he found. Mundret held
the city of the Earl for 70 and 1 mark of gold and
had all pleas of the county except Inglefield."
1088. Earl Hugh adheres to Rufus in Odo's rebellion.
1091. Is in Normandy, and concerned in Henry's short
war against Rufus, but makes his peace.
1092. At Chester and restores the monastery of St. Wer-
burgh. (Orderic. )
1097. Joins William's army in Normandy. (Orderic.)
1100. In Normandy at the time of William's death, but
after putting his affairs in order he hastened to Eng-
land, offered due submission to the new King " and
received confirmation in his possessions and all his
dignities with royal gifts." (Orderic.)
1101. Earl Hugh nominally becomes a monk and, after a
long illness, dies at Chester, July 27th. He is buried
in the Monastery of St. Werburgh. (Orderic.)
Richard his son succeeds, but Orderic mentions that
he was then a minor, and as he also says he only held
the Earldom for nearly 12 years, Richard could not
have been invested by Henry until about 1108.
1102. The Earl of Morton assailed Richard, Earl of
Chester, the son of Hugh, in Normandy, plundering
his possessions, " the Earl himself being at that time
a minor and under the protection and guardianship
of the King." (Malmesbury.)
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 145
1104. Earl Richard is at Henry's court in Normandy.
(Orderic.) As a minor he would be attached to the court.
1113. In Normandy, and witnesses the charter to St.
Evroul. (Orderic.)
1118. In Normandy, witnesses the Savigny charter.
(Round.)
1119. In Normandy, marries Matilda of Blois.
1120. November 25th. Sails from Normandy and is
drowned in the "White ship." Ranulf I, called Le
Meschin or "of Bayeux," his cousin, succeeds. He
had married, early in the century, Lucia, widow of
Roger de Roumare. (See under Lincoln.)
1120. "Ranulf of Bayeux obtained the earldom of
Chester with all the patrimony of Earl Richard, being
the nex-t heir as nephew of Matilda, Earl Hugh's
sister." (Orderic.)
Ranulf is in England, for he attends the January,
1121, Council at London (Round), and exchanges
some of the lands of his wife with the King in return
for the earldom. (Orderic.)
1121. Chester is raided by the Welsh. (Hoveden.)
1123. Earl Ranulf accompanies Henry and Robert, Earl
of Gloucester, to Normandy (S. of Durham), and is
castellan of the Tower of Evreux during the winter,
1123-4. (Orderic.)
1124. Commands Henry's forces at the Battle of Bourg-
Theroulde, in Normandy. (Orderic.)
1128. January 27. Death of Earl Ranulf I, who is suc-
ceeded by his son Ranulf II or " de Gernons."
1129. The See is translated to Coventry. (Florence.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Dr. Hunter suggests that the
Chester portion is lost, but, surely, a County Palatine
" held by the Earl as the King held his own honours "
would have its own Court of Exchequer. Hence, as
the new Earl could not account to himself at Chester
for his relief upon his succession, he is debited with
it in the Roll under Lincoln, where his mother's here-
ditary estates were. The late Earl is but recently
dead, for his widow, "Lucia Comitissa Cestriae," owes
600 marks of silver that she should not be married
again for five years. This refers to the King's privi-
lege of bestowing the hands of heiresses upon his
favourites and receiving fees in return from the hus-
bands. (See Wallingford.) That she owes it shows
that it was the previous year's assessment, and there-
TOL. 1. FOURTH SERIES. U
146 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
fore Ranulf I died before Michaelmas, 1129. She
accounts for 266 18s. 4d. in respect of [her dower
in] the land of her father in succession to her husband,
and for various other sums. The new Earl, who evi-
dently is in England, amongst other items owes 1,000
" de debito" of his father for the land of Earl Hugh
(the earldom of Chester), and 500 marks of silver
according to the agreement which the King made be-
tween him and his mother concerning her dower.
(William de Roumare, Lucia's eldest son and heir to
the Lincoln earldom, had rebelled because the King
would not listen to his claim "to the land of his
mother which Ranulf of Bayeux, his step-father, had
exchanged with the King for the earldom of Chester."
Orderic.)
1181. Earl Ranulf witnesses Henry's charter to Salisbury
at the Northampton council on September 8th.
(Round.)
1136. Leads a disastrous expedition against the Welsh.
(Hagulstad.)
Although not specified in the Law of Athelstan, the
name of this town first appears on the coins of his reign
that is, soon after the restoration of the town by Ethel-
fleda. Coins of Eadmund and Eadgar are in evidence of
the Chester mint, and also of all the latter' s successors,
to the close of the Saxon dynasty. Ruding naturally
points out the fact that although the mint is mentioned in
Domesday under the Confessor, as quoted above, it is not
noticed as existing in the reign of William I.
When William, in 1070, founded the castle, he granted
the city to Gherbod, the Fleming, but Gherbod soon
went abroad and suffered a long imprisonment (Orderic).
Whether he was anything more than castellan and lord
of the city is doubtful, for his tertius denarius seems to
have been that of the city only. But in 1071 William
granted unto " Hugh D'Avranches and his heirs the
whole county of Chester, to hold as freely by his sword as
he himself held England by his crown." How, there-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 147
.fore, could Domesday possibly, include in the King's
revenue the rent and fees of a mint already granted to
the Earl ? Perhaps this sword of state was the one
referred to below.
The coins we have of this mint under the Confessor
exactly corroborate Domesday's statement that there were
seven moneyers here at that time. But as half the town
had been destroyed in 1070, Earl Hugh seems to have
reduced their number to three, and no doubt that number
was ample in the desolated condition in which the north
of England then was. One of the others, however, he
removed to Rhuddlan, but there the Earl had only a half
share in the mint, so its revenue is brought into the
Domesday accounts to be divided between King and earl.
On Henry's accession, Earl Hugh was abroad, but
presently returned, and immediately after receiving " con-
firmation in his possessions and all his dignities " died,
July 27th, 1101. There would, therefore, scarcely be time
for type 251 (1100-1102) to be issued, even if the earl
had not taken "the monastic habit in the Abbey at
Chester." But a coin of that type is assigned to Chester
in the Montagu Catalogue, and is here given under this
mint and under Lewes (which see), as it may equally well
be assigned to either. It may be of interest to notice
that the lettering on this type, 251, is almost identical
with the inscription " HVGO EOMEZ " upon the blade of
the sword in the British Museum, at present attributed
to either this earl or the Earl Hugh of Henry II's time.
Earl Richard succeeds but is a minor, then aged seven
(Chronicle of St. Werburg), and therefore his estates
and himself would be in wardship to the King. In
such cases coinage was never continued ; e.g., the parallel
cases of Bristol, Ipswich, etc.
148 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
In 1104 Richard, still a minor, is recorded as one of
those who " honourably received " the King upon his
arrival in Normandy. The moral influence of his presence
there had probably been rendered advisable in consequence
of the Earl of Morton's raid in 1102. He, however,
returns to England with the King, for on Whit Sunday,
May 13th, 1106, he is with his mother at Abingdon, and
under her auspices grants a charter to the monastery in
memory of Earl Hugh. From that date to 1119 his name
is absent from our English chronicles and charters, but as
meanwhile he witnesses at least six of the latter in Nor-
mandy he may be presumed to have remained abroad. It
was, however, necessary before his marriage to Matilda of
Blois, in 1119, that he should receive his confirmation
charter of the Palatine Earldom, and so, although he is
a witness to the Savigny Charter in 1118, we find him
returning to England early in 1119 to take seizin of his
hereditary estates. This is proved by his own confirma-
tion charter to St. Werburg's Monastery, dated at
Grantham, 1119. Immediately, therefore, type 263
(1119-1121) appears at Chester, being the first coinage
struck in that city after an interval of eighteen years.
At Grantham he was probably returning to Normandy,
for he was married there in the same year, and he and
his bride perished in the wreck of the unfortunate White
Ship, November 25th, 1120.
Ranulf I succeeds, but as his descent was from the
sister of the first earl, and therefore gave no claim dejure,
he only obtained the earldom upon condition of the
surrender to the King of his Cumberland lordship. (See
Carlisle, p. 140.) As he attests a charter at the January
Council at London in 1121 as Earl of Chester, he prob-
ably had already received his " confirmation," and there-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 149
fore continued to issue type 263 (1119-1121), which is
followed by IV (1121-1123).
In June, 1123, Earl Ranulf accompanies Henry to Nor-
mandy, and perforce the coinage promptly stops. He is
still there in 1124, and died before 1129 probably in 1128
so since neither his return nor his death is mentioned
by any English chronicler (except that the Chronicle
of St. Werburg gives the day of the month, viz.,
January 27th, though not the year, which, however, was
probably 1128), he may be presumed to have remained
and died abroad, where his name is associated with several
Normandy charters. The Chester mint, therefore, was in
abeyance from 1123 to 1128.
The Pipe Roll shows that Ranulf II was in England
and had already succeeded to the earldom in 1129, also
that he was then paying his relief to the crown, and so
had received his confirmation charter. The mint reopens,
and type 262 (1128-1131) is issued. Ranulf is certainly
here in 1131, and in fact remains in England all the rest
of his life, so type 255 (1131-1135) follows as a matter of
course.
The old mint of Chester was in operation until the early
years of Henry II, when it was discontinued. It was,
however, more than once revived for a short period in
later times.
COINS.
*AILMA[E] . N : EESTE .frhENEIEVS : 255
Watford find. The moneyer continued to coin
here for Stephen, and Alymer is a Chester
name to-day.
.frEEISTEET : ON : EES : .frhENEIEVS EE 262
British Museum. Engraved Ruding, Sup., ii.,
1, 5, and Hawkins, 262. EILLE coined
150
. NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
here for Harold I, EILLEEBIST for Har-
thacnut, and now ERISTEET. As to the
evolution of these compound family names
see Introduction to the London mint. This
note alone should clear the vexed question,
as to which are Chester and which Leicester
coins, for the first name is followed hy ON
LEIEE, the second by ON LE6EEE and
LE6IE and the last by ON EES which ob-
viously represents the Chester mint. Christy
is a Chester name to-day.
* ERISTEET ON EES
Sale, March, 1871.
* ERISTEET : ON : EES :
J. G. Murdoch.
.frEEITEE : ON LEI .
4-hENEIEVSEE 262
. . ENRIEVS EEX :
AN
IV
British Museum. PL V, No. 11. The
moneyer is probably for EEI[S]TEE.
S EE 262
frGILLEMOE : ON : EES :
Watford find. CILLEJ7INE ON LEH for
Chester under the Confessor ; 6LLLEMOB
ON EES, Henry I. See EEISTEEr7~
^.TIiVRBVRN : ON : EES
frfrENRIEVS
255
Montagu Sale, 1897. Engraved Num. Chron.,
1883, vii., 1. From the Linton find and
Mr. Wakeford's collection. Thorburn is still
a Chester name.
* TIi VEB .. N : OKIES *I\EN . . EVS :
Watford find. 2 specimens.
. TVERET ON EESTEE
Sale, April, 1874. Perhaps for EEISTEET.
255
262
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 151
frPINNEIED ON LEI *HNEI EEX N 251
J. Verity. From the Durrant, 1847, 7 13s. Od. ;
Wigan, Brice,and Montagu, 1896, 5 5s. Od.,
collections. See Lewes.
fr EA : ON : LEI\ . IiENEI EEX 263
Webb Sale, 1894, 8. From the Martin,
1859, 8 5s. Od. ; Murchison, 1864,
5 7s. 6d. ; Whitbourn, 1869, 2 10s. Od.,
and Neck collections.
BIE . N EEST .frliENEIEVS E 262
A. A. Banes. Possibly, EEISTEIE.
Tyssen Sale, 1802. IV
The second coin of type 263 in the Webb Catalogue 1894,
misread ON LEIEESTEE, is a Winchester coin.
CHICHESTEE (Susssx).
ClSECEASTEK, ClSSACEASTEB, ClCCASTKIA ; Domesday, ClCESTBE ;
Pipe Roll, CICESTKIA,
Chichester was a Roman station of considerable import-
ance, and the rectangular plan of its streets to-day is a
survival of the original design of its founders. In 477,
the Saxon chiefs ^lla and Cissa landed on the coasts of
Sussex, and there seems little reason to doubt that they
took Chichester, and that the latter made it his capital,
hence Cissa-ceaster. As such it remained the capital of the
South Saxons until, after being for a time annexed to
Mercia, that kingdom of the Heptarchy was subdued by
Egbert in 823. In 895 the men of Chichester " slew many
hundreds of the Danes and took some of their ships " (Sax.
Chron.). Chichester prospered, and was a thriving city
at the date of the Conquest.
152 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1068. "King William gave to Roger de Montgomery first
the castle of Arundel and the city of Chichester "-
with the earldoms of Chichester and Arundel " and
afterwards the earldom of Shrewsbury." (Orderic.)
1070. About this time Stigand, Bishop of Sussex, removes
the seat of the bishopric from Selsey to Chichester,
and Earl Roger grants him the whole of the south-
west quarter of the city as a site for the cathedral
and palace. Earl Roger founds the Norman castle.
1086. Domesday notes. In King Edward's time, the
city contained about 100 houses. Now the city is in
the hands of Earl Roger, and there are 60 houses
more than there were before, and one mill. The city
rendered 15 to the Confessor and W the tertius
denarius of the city to the then Earl. " Now it is
worth 25, and yet it returns 35." The mint is not
mentioned.
1088. Earl Roger in arms at Arundel secretly for Robert
of Normandy, but makes peace with William, and
hastens to Normandy to oppose Duke Robert.
(Florence and Orderic.)
1091. Ralph Luffa appointed Bishop of Chichester.
1095. July 27th. Death of Earl Roger at Shrewsbury.
(Orderic.) His sons succeed : Hugh de Montgomery
to his English earldom, and Robert de Beleme to his
Norman possessions. (Orderic.)
1098. Earl Hugh is slain in an affray on the Welsh
coast. (Orderic.) Robert de Beleme pays 3,000 to
William II for succession to his brother's English
earldoms.
1100. Orderic mentions Earl Robert in the same clause
with the Earl of Chester as both being in Normandy
at the date of Henry's accession ; but putting their
affairs in order, they hastened to England " and
received confirmation in their possessions and all
dignities with royal gifts."
1101. His visit to England seems merely to have been
to Henry's court to tender his submission to the new
King, for we find him immediately afterwards again
in Normandy receiving a grant of the castle of
Argentan from Duke Robert. (Orderic).
July. He is once more in England, and welcomes
Duke Robert upon his invasion. (Orderic).
1102. Earl Robert is summoned to court to answer
charges of treason, but fortifies Arundel, Bridgnorth,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 153
and Shrewsbury. These, however, are ultimately
surrendered, Earl Robert banished, and his estates
confiscated. His subsequent career will be found
under Wareham. Orderic comments upon the fact
that his sons were never reinstated in their father's
English estates.
1108. The first cathedral now consecrated.
1114. May 5th. " The city of Chichester, together with
the principal monastery the cathedral was, through
culpable carelessness, destroyed by fire." (Hoveden.)
1123. December 14th. Death of Bishop Ralph, "in
whose place Pelochin was appointed ; a great rogue
who was consequently deposed." (Huntingdon's
letter to Walter.)
1125. Sigfred, Abbot of G-lastonbury, appointed Bishop
whilst with Henry in Normandy. He returns and is
consecrated, April 12th, at Lambeth. (Huntingdon
and Florence.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The Bishop still owes 44 15s. Od.
for the old firma of the Abbey of Glastonbury, and
receives a grant of 46s. 8d. from the revenue of
Sussex. William Pont de 1'Arche returns the accounts
for the Honour of Arundel, which is evidently in the
King's hands, and 22 7s. 8d. is spent on the castle.
Brand the moneyer accounts for 20, that he might
not be " disfactus " with the other moneyers. He
pays 4 and still owes 16, and the sheriff accounts
for one mark of silver from " the fees of the moneyers
of Chichester."
The Law of Athelstan granted one moneyer to Chi-
chester, but no coins bearing the name of this mint are
known earlier than of the reign of Ethelred II. It had
then acquired three moneyers coining at a time, and this
number though only one appears on Harthacnut's coins
seems to have been maintained through all the suc-
ceeding Saxon reigns.
In 1068, "William I granted the earldom and city of
Chichester to Roger de Montgomery, and therefore the
mint also. Hence the latter does not come under the
scope of Domesday. The mint remained the Earl's privi-
VGL. I. FOURTH SERIES. X
154 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
lege until his death in 1095. Earl Hugh, his successor,
probably obtained a confirmation charter from Rufus, and
on his death in 1098, Robert de Beleme certainly did.
During these reigns the same number of moneyers was
continued under the Montgomerys.
When Henry came to the throne Earl Robert was in
Normandy, and probably did not attend the Court to pay
his homage before Christmas 1100 or Easter 1101. At some
time in 1101 he was in Normandy again, and in the
summer with Duke Robert in Hampshire. Immediately
after this, in preparation for the coming struggle, we find
him surrounding the castle of Bridgnorth with a lofty
wall (Florence), and then came his great rebellion, his
fall and banishment in 1102. So it does not appear that
he was at Chichester after Henry's accession, nor, with the
exception of the more than doubtful one of Tewkesbury,
has his name been found upon any English charter of
this reign. He was Duke Robert's faithful partisan
throughout his life, and would never have condescended
to issue Henry's money. Therefore no coins of this period
appear from the mint.
On the confiscation of Robert de Bele'me's honours in
1102, the city and mint of Chichester fell into the King's
hands, but that fact no more constituted the latter a royal
mint than it gave Chichester the privileges of a royal city.
The invariable result followed the mint became dormant,
and seems to have remained so until some time between
1112 and 1114, for the first six types of Henry's reign do
not appear upon its coins. The question arises : In whom
was the right of coinage revived in 1112-1114? We
must now look forward a hundred years, when we find that
King John in 1204 ordered that the Bishop's coins should
continue current alone in this city until money should be
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN Of HENRY I. 155
struck in the King's mint ; after which both the regal and
episcopal money should be current together. In the same
year William Fitz Otho the hereditary die engraver
was directed to supply to the Bishop one die for his mint
(probably the usual confirmation grant). But in the
following year the King granted to the Bishop two of his
(the King's) dies in that city, and the mint with all its
appurtenances and liberties, at a rent of thirty marks for
one year, and commanded William Fitz Otho to deliver
the dies accordingly.
From this it is quite clear that the proper number of
moneyers at Chichester was then still three> but prior to
1 205 two of them had been dormant, though the Bishop's
money er was then coining. King John evidently at first
intended to revive the two moneyers and establish a royal
mint, but he thought better of it, perhaps because he had
no precedent for converting a chartered into a royal mint,
and so he granted the remaining two moneyers to the
Bishop, thus giving him the whole mint.
From 1114 to 1204, with the exception of two com-
paratively short breaks, we have a sequence of coins issued
from the Chichester mint. During the whole of that
period, so far as we can judge from the coins, there waa
never more than one moneyer coming here at any
time, and as we know that prior to 1205 there was only
the Bishop's moneyer coining here, it is fair inference that
all these intermediate coins were struck by the Bishops of
Chichester, and that the two nominal moneyers' dies
remained dormant from the date of the confiscation of
Robert de Beleme's privileges in 1102 to the year 1205.
In May, 1114, the city and cathedral were destroyed by
fire, but we are told by several of our historians that by the
munificence of King Henry, who was his personal friend,
156 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Bishop Ralph immediately rebuilt the cathedral. The
Bishop already owned a considerable portion of the city,
but he does not seem to have ever had a moneyer in it
prior to about this date. But from 1114 to the exact
date of his death we have one moneyer coining here in
every type, and only one type missing. The inference,
therefore, is that Henry, to recoup his friend for the mis-
fortune of the fire, granted him a charter of perhaps the
remainder of the city, and in any case gave him the privi-
lege of one moneyer at Chichester, for the most natural
method of benefiting the Bishop would be by charter of
some of the privileges so recently confiscated. The argu-
ment that these coins were ecclesiastical in their origin
seems supported by the annulets which appear as orna-
ments upon some, if not all, of them, for all have not
been examined. (See under Beading, Peterborough,
York, &c.)
The only types, therefore, known to us of the Chichester
mint during this reign are 267 (1112-1114), 266 (1114-
1116), 264 (1116-1119), and IV. (1121-1123). In 1123
Bishop Ralph died, and perhaps the remainder of the city
was granted to Queen Adeliza with the Honour of Arundel,
for her second husband, William de Albini, as early as
1141 styled himself Earl of Sussex, and shortly afterwards
Earl of Chichester, as proved by Mr. Round in " Geoffrey
de Manderitte" Chichester was not in the King's hands
in 1130, or its revenues would have been credited in the
Pipe Roll.
The entry in the Roll concerning Brand, the moneyer,
is interesting, as his name appears on the Chichester coins
of types 267 (1112-1114), 266 (1114-1116), and IV (1121-
1123), but not when the mint re-opens in Stephen's reign.
Just as the Bishop's debt for the old /mo of the Abbey
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY 1. 157
of Glastoubury has been brought forward from the year
1125, so Brand's fine may similarly be from the same year.
He is paying it by instalments, this year 4, and we find,
when in later times we have a sequence of the Rolls, that
such fines were often carried on for several years. He
still owes 16 that he should not be " disfactus with
the other money era." Surely this means " with the other
moneyers" at the great Inquisition of Christmas, 1125.
Brand, as a servant of the Bishop, would no doubt be
slightly educated and able to plead " benefit of clergy."
Hence as the law then was he would be released with a fine
only, but nevertheless disqualified from further office. In
the Pipe Rolls of Henry II, we find several payments for
"disfaciendo" false moneyers, and therefore this word may
be accepted as the term for that mutilation which is de-
scribed under the accounts of the 1125 Inquisition. This
conviction or the death of Bishop Ralph seems to have
stopped coinage here during the remainder of the reign.
The next entry in the 1130 Roll is that William de
Pont de 1'Arche, as sheriff, " returns an account of one
mark of silver ' de Hoibz ' of the moneyers of Chichester."
The words in italics having the curved contraction over
the o, if correctly transcribed, probably stand for de honor-
ibus, not de hominibus, nor would the latter reading be so
intelligible. Honos, therefore, must be construed in its
meaning of fee or reward, as " honos medici " for example,
and so we have the sheriff accounting for the fees of
moneyers of whom we have no record. It is also similarly
used elsewhere in the Roll, and whichever meaning is
intended is immaterial to the main point of the passage,
which is, that other moneyers than Brand are mentioned.
But this particular entry is followed by the note that the
sheriff "has freed (or passed) the account in the Treasury
158
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
and is quit," not, as is usual, that he has paid it into the
Treasury. We have over and over again similar entries
of payments made by persons or cities and immediately
returned to them by the King's writ. The explanation,
therefore, seems to be that for the purpose of keeping on
record that the two moneyers of Chichester were only
dormant, not extinct, the sheriff on the one side debits
himself with their fees, and on the other credits himself
without payment. A system of account not unknown
to-day. (See the " Dialogue of the Exchequer " upon this
distinction, and compare the similar Domesday entry
under Colchester, page 162.)
The Chichester coinage ceases in the reign of Henry III.
COINS.
ON EIEE
4-KENRI EEX
J. Verity. An annulet in the centre of the
reverse cross. The moneyer is probably
from Hastings, where the family had long
been moneyers. [Mr. Verity has for twenty
years contributed the readings of his Norman
coins for this work.]
. . . END ON EIDI
Bari find. The moneyer is probably BREND
or BRAND.
266
267
fr BRAND EIEEosR : .frriENRIEVao RE* A IV
British Museum. [Fig. P and PI. V, No. 6.]
Engraved Num. Chron., 1881, iii. 2. From the
Montagu, 1896, 5, and Toplis collections and
the Nottingham find. Two annulets on the breast.
4.GODPINE : ON : EIEE : *I\ENRIEVS RE : 264
Capt. R. J. H. Douglas. [PI. IV, No. 10.]
A GODPINE coined here under Rufus. Annu-
lets on the crown.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 159
COLCHESTER (ESSEX).
COLNECEASTER, CoLENCEASTRE, CoLECEASTEA ; Domesday and
Pipe Roll, COLECESTKA ; Charters, COLCESTEIA, &c.
The origin of this ancient town is lost in antiquity ; we
have, however, numismatic evidence of its having been one
of the principal Celtic cities, and a reference to Sir John
Evans' Coins of the Ancient Britons discloses that of all the
districts in England, this is the most prolific in the dis-
covery of those memorials. Few towns in England retain
more vestiges of Roman architecture, and even the walls
of the castle are said, as to nearly one-third of their
fabric, to be composed of brick, tiles, and materials dating
from that period, and used again in their construction.
Alternately Saxon and Danish, Colchester suffered the
vicissitudes of siege and rapine. In 921 Edward the
Elder, after the town had been stormed, repaired the
walls where they were broken down. Mr. I. C. Gould
points out that the walls of Colchester which are men-
tioned in the early chronicles, would be the Roman walls
still utilized for defence, and which even now in places
rise many feet above ground. Many times has Colchester
suffered a siege, and but once withstood it. But the most
peaceful period of its bygone history was during the two
centuries immediately succeeding the Conquest, when it
plays no part in the turmoils of England.
1075. Approximate date of the foundation of the Norman
keep.
1086. Domesday notes. The number of houses, accord-
ing to Mr. Bound's calculation, was 450. There
were two churches and four mills. The town was a
royal burg, and in the Confessor's time the burgesses
farmed it of the King at an annual payment of
160 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
15 5s. 3d., which included a sum of 4 from the
moneyers. Now the burg returns 80, and certain
customs to the King. "And in addition to this the
burgesses of Colchester and of Maldon render 20 for
the mint." "And this Waleran fixed, and they plead
the King's allowance which he made them of 10,
and Walkelin holding from the Bishop claims 40
from them." Eudo Dapifer, though several times
mentioned under the county, had then but a small
holding in Colchester itself. Otto Aurifaber holds 8
houses here the site of which is still known as
" Goldsmith's field."
1091 ? William II by charter grants the "town, keep
and castle " of Colchester to Eudo Dapifer.
1101. Henry I by charter confirms to Eudo " the city of
Colchester and the keep and castle and all the
defences of that city, and all things which appertain
to it, with all the advantages that my father and
brother and I possessed in it, and with all those
customs which my father and brother and I ever had
in it. And this grant was made at Westminster at
the first Christmas after the treaty of my brother
Count Robert between me and him." (See Mr.
Round's Geoffrey de Mandeville.)
1120. March 1st. Eudo died at his castle of Preaux in
Normandy. (Cotton MS.).
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Hamo de St. Clare, on behalf of
the King, collects ihejirma of the city of Colchester,
pays 38 16s. 2d., and owes 1 3s. lOd. (total 40).
He also accounts for three years' arrears of the
auxilium of the city, but the King remits to " all the
burgesses of Colchester 100 shillings." Hamo also
accounts for 190 3s. in respect of the jinna of the
lands of Eudo. " Edward " accounts for 36s. 8d. for
a treasury plea, pays 20s., and owes 16s. 8d.
In the Coins of the Ancient Britons Sir John Evans
describes the coins of Cunobelinus (circa A.D. 40), bearing
the name of Camulodunum, the ancient name for Col-
chester, and there can be no doubt that it was that chief's
principal city. Colchester had a Roman mint, and it
is probable that coins were struck here under the early
Saxon kings, bearing, however, no name to distinguish
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OP HENRY I. 161
them. But the next record we have of the mint is in
the Law of Athelstan, which assigns three moneyers
to Colchester, two being for the King, and one for the
bishop (of London). Owing to the Danish troubles this
grant seems to have remained a dead letter until the reign
of Ethelred II, for we have no Colchester coins until
then. From that time until the close of the Saxon rule,
coins of every king with the exception of Harthacnut
are issued here.
Domesday tells us that, in the time of the Confessor,
the town was a royal burg farmed, together with the
mint, to the burgesses at 15 5s. 3d., of which 4 was
contributed by the money ers. Between that time and
1086 there is evidently a change. Waleran, who is re-
ferred to, was perhaps the King's castellan when the
castle was founded, and it would appear that William had
confiscated the Saxon charter to the burgesses, but upon
Waleran's intercession had regranted it to them at an
increased rent. They now pay to the King 80, and
certain customs for their burg, and 20 jointly with the
burgesses of Maldon for the mint (" moneta," in the
singular). Of this, Walkelin, holding from the bishop,
claims 40 from them. Hitherto this has been passed as
unintelligible, but if we assess the value of the customs at
20, we have a total firma of 120. So the Bishop of
London was evidently entitled to the tertius denarius of the
burg, and therefore, through his representative Walkelin,
claimed 40. Perhaps this explains the mistake of
" Walkelin, ' Bishop ' of London," in a charter of Rufus
to Bermondsey Abbey.
Under the Law of Athelstan, the bishop had what was
practically the tertius denarius of the mint, and so, perhaps,
that of the town too ; but, as Mr. Round would point out,
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. Y
162 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
this must not be confused with an earl's third penny of
a county.
The assessment of Colchester and Maldon jointly for
their mint suggests something similar to the conditions of
the mints of Barnstaple, Totness, and Lydford, as de-
scribed under Barnstaple, and so Colchester and Maldon
probably issued money at either town alternately, and if
only one mint was in operation during the year, the King
remitted 10, but if both, then each town paid 10, and
so 20 was retained in the Survey as the nominal firma
from the burgesses.
This is borne out by the coins we have of these two
mints, issued during the reigns of William I-II, for the
types of Maldon fill up most of the blanks of Colchester.
In 1091 there is a further change. But this date must
not be accepted too strictly, as Henry I's charter has been
confused with William's, and so the date 1091 was accepted
because it was that of the treaty between Rufus and Duke
Robert, although the former contains the words, " Sicut
Pater meus et Frater et ego," referring to William
I, II, and Henry I. Colchester is granted to Eudo
Dapifer, and there is no ground for the argument that
he was merely the King's castellan, for the wording
of the charter grants him the town and all its privi-
leges. Hence he acquired the mint, and if the Maldon
mint was under Colchester, as Domesday infers, then
that of Maldon also. Again, as was the result in the
case of Barnstaple and Lydford, he at once finally dis-
continues the minor mint of Maldon, and coins only at
Colchester. Also, as at Barnstaple, and for the same
reasons as are given there, the staff of moneyers is reduced
from three to one.
This brings us to Henry's accession in 1100. It will
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 163
be noticed that the King's confirmation charter to Eudo
is dated from Westminster, at the first Christmas after
his treaty with Duke Robert of Normandy. Henry held
his Christmas Court at Westminster in both 1101 and
1103>, and therefore the question arises, to which treaty
did he refer. The presence, however, of the name of the
Bishop of Winchester amongst the witnesses proves the
date to have been Christmas, 1101-2, for he was in exile
in 1103.
From Christmas, 1101, to about the year 1107, Eudo
was in England, and although one would scarcely expect
to find type 251 in evidence, which at the date of the
charter had only nine months to run, type 254 (1102-
1104) ought certainly to be forthcoming, but as yet it
remains missing. The next type, however, we have
namely, the PAX type 253 (1104-1106), which, like
Eudo r charter, commemorates the treaties with Duke
Robert of 1101 and 1103.
Of the reign of Henry I there are no* fewer than thirty
English charters which bear the name of Eudo as a
witness. Eight of these are dated and are all prior to
the year 1108, the latest being of the eighth year of the
reign i.e. Aug. 1107 Aug. 110&. Every one of the
remaining twenty-two by internal evidence e.g., the
appearance upon it of such names as Robert Fitz Hamon,
Maurice, Bishop of London, and Roger Bigod must also
have been granted before 1108. We have thus the
remarkable fact that the name of the Steward of the
King's Household suddenly, and completely, disappears
from our English charters practically in the same year as
coinage is discontinued at Colchester for an interval of
twenty years.
The explanation of this is not difficult. It was not
164 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
until the Battle of Tinchebrai, in September, 1106, that
Henry acquired possession of Normandy, nor was his
possession assured until the close of the following year.
But from that date to the death of Eudo, in 1120, the
King spent two-thirds of his time in the Duchy, and as
he had two Royal Dapifers, Eudo and Hamon, he retained
Hamon in England, who continues to witness our English
charters, and appointed Eudo to Normandy. Eudo pro-
bably left England in 1107, for he witnesses the Rouen
Charter to Bermondsey Abbey soon after that date, and
continued in Normandy, where his name now appears as a
witness to several charters until his death at the Castle of
Preaux, in 1120. This explains the passage in the Empress
Matilda's charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville, " Et do ei
totam terram quce fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Normannia et
Dapiferatum ipsius " (Round). The Cottonian MS. History
of Colchester Abbey also implies that Eudo was Dapifer in
Normandy, that he died there, and that his widow never
returned to this country.
Eudo left no son, and, as Mr. Round points out in
Geoffrey de Mandeville, it may be assumed that he died
without any issue, for his vast estates reverted to the
Crown. Thus Colchester once more fell into the King's
possession, and, as usual, the mint remained dormant until
the town was regranted by him.
In the 1130 Roll we have evidence that the burgesses
are once more paying their firma to the King, but it has
now been reduced to 40. This tells us that at some time
between 1120 and 1129 Henry had regranted their ancient
charter to the burgesses to farm their city, as in the time
of the Confessor, but at a rent of 40. It tells us a little
more, for by the entry of three years' arrears of auxilium
we have the date of the charter thrown back to 1125-1126,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 165
or the very date assigned to the similar charters to Barn-
staple and other places presently mentioned.
This explains the next types issued from Colchester, for
the burgesses have thus once more recovered their ancient
privilege of coinage, and immediately issue 265 (1126-
1128), which is followed by 262 (1128-1131).
The last type of the reign, 255, however, does not appear,
and to explain its absence, as we have no materials for the
history of Colchester between 1130 and 1141, we must refer
to Matilda's charter of the latter date, from which we gather
that Geoffrey de Mandeville, who had succeeded his father
during the issue of type 262, had claimed the whole of
the lands in England which formerly belonged to Eudo
Dapifer, as his collateral heir. Thus again the history
of Colchester strikingly resembles that of Barnstaple, and
probably this claim in a like manner caused the revocation
of the burgesses' charter.
We have, however, evidence that the actual date when
the mint was discontinued was at Michaelmas, 1129. It
will be remembered that when, in 1086, the fir ma of the
burg was 80, the share of the Colchester mint, excluding
Maldon, was 10 ; so now, in 1129-30, when the^rwa is
40, the mint's share would be only 5. Hence as the
Pipe Roll tells us that out of the firma of 40 one
hundred shillings were returned to the burgesses in 1130,
we may assume that this reduction of 5 was, as in the
similar instances of Dorchester and Tamworth (which see)
in return for the surrender of the dies.
That the firma of 40 paid by the burgesses did in-
clude the privilege of coining is quite clear, for our coins
tell us that the mint of Colchester was discontinued during
the issue of the first type of Henry II, and the Pipe Roll
for 1157-1158 shows this to have occurred in that year.
166
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
For the fir ma paid by the town was still 40, but sixty
shillings of it was returned to the burgesses " in defectu
monetariorum de uno anno."
The entry in the 1130 Roll in which Edward accounts
for a balance now standing at thirty-six shillings and
eightpence, which he is paying by instalments, for a con-
viction upon a treasury plea, supplies the missing letters
to the moneyer's name, " jAED[PAE]D," upon type 265
(1126-1128), and explains why it does not appear upon
the current type 262.
After an abeyance of nearly five hundred years the
Colchester mint was revived for a short period during its
famous siege in the Civil War.
COINS.
*A[EDPAE]D : ON : EOLEE
Whitbourn Sale, 1869. As to this moneyer,
see above.
265
*AED . . . D : ON EOLEE
J. Pollexfen.
*I\ENEIEVS E ; 265
: ON EOLEEES *I\ENRIEVS BE : 265
British Museum. From Durant Sale, 1847,
1 17s., pierced. ^ELFSI, probably the
father, coined here under the Conqueror.
ON:OLE
I HENEI EXI
253
British Museum. From the Cuff Sale, 1854,
2 6s. The moneyer's name stands for
S^EGEIM, mentioned as a burgess of Col-
chester in Domesday.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 167
frPVLFPI : . EOL . . *hEN . . . VS E 262
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
The moneyer's name is a contraction of
PVLFPINE, and he is probably the son of
Wulfwine, monetarius of Colchester men-
tioned in Domesday ; coins of whom we
have bearing both forms of the name,
PVLFPI and PVLFPINE, of Harold II
and William I.
.frPVLPI : . . . LE .frhENK 262
Hunterian Museum. The same money er.
. ON EOLEE 266
Sale, May, 1855.
Tyssen Sale, 1802. 265
DORCHESTER (DORSETSHIRE).
DOBNECEASTER, DoBNCEASTER, DoRCEASTER, DoRNWARACEASTER ;
Domesday, DORECESTRE ; Pipe Roll, DORECESTRIA.
From the Celtic fortifications and tumuli around Dor-
chester it was evidently a great tribal centre prior to the
Roman invasion of Britain, and under the rule of the
Legions the town was the famous station of Durnovaria,
and the Dunium of Ptolemy. Its importance at that
period is not only evidenced in history, but also in
the remarkable vestiges of Roman occupation still remain-
ing. Our chroniclers are nearly silent as to Dorchester
in Saxon days, although we know from a charter of
Egbert, in 833, that it was then a royal town. The men
of Dorset, however, are recorded as more than holding
their own against the Danes on several occasions, and
168 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
perhaps it was owing to their stubborn defence that the
ancient burg kept the noiseless tenor of its way.
1066. Immediately after the Conquest William would
appear from Domesday to have appointed one Hugh
to be Sheriff of Dorchester.
1067. " At that time the West Saxons of Dorset and
Somerset, and their neighbours, made an attack on
Montacute, but by God's providence they were foiled
in their attempt ; for the men of Winchester, TJondon,
and Salisbury, under the command of Geoffrey, Bishop
of Coutances, came upon them by surprise, slew some
of them, and, mutilating a number of the prisoners,
put the rest to flight." (Orderic under 1069.)
1086. Domesday notes. In the time of the Confessor
there were 172 houses in Dorchester. These were
rated for all the King's service, and paid geld for 10
hides, to wit to the use of the King's " housecarles "
1 mark of silver, except the customs relating to the
firma noctis. At that time there were two moneyers,
each of whom paid 1 mark of silver to the King [as a
firma], and 20s. whenever the money was changed.
Now there are 88 houses, and 100 (have been) entirely
destroyed since the time of Hugh the Sheriff. The
King (William I) holds Dorchester, and King Edward
held it.
1180. Pipe Eoll notes. "The burgesses" pay 11 in
auzilium, but 40s. is remitted by the King's writ
in pardon " to the burgesses of Shaftesbury because of
their poverty, [and] 40s. to the burgesses of Dor-
chester."
According to one copy of Athelstan's Law, a moneyer
was granted to Dorchester, but the authority is doubtful,
and the explanation of it is probably a graphical error
for Rochester. The earliest coins we have bearing the
name of this mint are of the reign of Ethelred II, and upon
these only one moneyer's name appears ; nor does it seem
certain that more than one at a time ever coined here
until the days of the Confessor. The names also of
Canute, Harold I, Harthacnut, and the Confessor, appear
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 169
upon the coins, but that of Harold II is missing. Dor-
chester, however, was never a prolific mint, although we
have some half dozen of the Confessor's types represented
by its coins, and upon some of them the names of two
moneyers appear.
Immediately after the Conquest the men of Dorset, in-
cluding, no doubt, the burgesses of Dorchester, joined in
the Exeter rising, and attacked Montacute in Somerset.
This brought destruction upon themselves, for William,
in his march upon Exeter, ravaged the whole country in
the west. Out of 172 houses, " 100 have been entirely
destroyed since the time of Sheriff Hugh," is the mournful
passage in Domesday which can only refer to that raid,
and even then, twenty years afterwards, only 16 houses
had been rebuilt. This indicates how complete was the
devastation, and how slow the recovery.
The town was the King's, and, therefore, the mint
also. Before the catastrophe, we are told there were here
two moneyers who paid one mark of silver to Edward the
Confessor, and twenty shillings whenever the money was
changed. In the year 1086, however, Domesday is silent
as to their then existence, and so the mint must either
have been discontinued or farmed with the town to the
burgesses, for Dorchester remained a royal burg.
If, for a moment, we glance forward to the records
of the time of the Plantagenets, we find that Edward III
caused an Inquisition to be made "as to how much the
burgesses of Dorchester, or those to whom the said town
was demised by our progenitors, or us, at a certain firma
per annum, were accustomed to render to our said pro-
genitors." The enquiry only extended back to the sixth
year of Henry III, when ihejirma of the burgesses was
16, but it is sufficient to show that the burgesses then
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. Z
170 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
held their town in fee farm by ancient custom. It
is true that, for a time, in the reign of Henry II, it was
part of the territory of Queen Eleanor ; but this was an ex-
ception, and would merely change the recipient of the/r^w.
The destruction of the town seems clearly to have
occurred in the West Country rising of 1067, and no
doubt it was then that the moneyers were discontinued,
perhaps partly as a punishment to the burgesses, and
partly because the ruined town was too poor to profitably
maintain them. But shortly before the date of Domesday
the mint was revived, and this was, no doubt, owing to a
charter farming the town and mint to the burgesses, for
from that time they issued coinage occasionally, at least,
until the close of the reign of Rufus.
Dorchester plays no part in the general history of
Henry I's reign, and all that we then know of it is learnt
from the Pipe Roll, and from its coins. The Roll tells us
that, in 1129-30, the burgesses were paying auxilium, and
therefore at that time held their town, but that they were
remitted forty shillings because of their poverty. This
shows that the}'' had not even yet recovered from the
destruction of 1067, and so coinage would then be of little
profit in a neighbourhood so surrounded by prolific mints.
If, however, there was a time when a minor mint would
be more profitable than at another, it was that immedi-
ately following the great Inquisition of the moneyers at
Winchester in 1125, when so many of them were dis-
qualified. This, too, seems to be the year when Henry
granted the cities or towns and mints of Barnstaple,
Colchester, and other places throughout the country, at
firma, to the citizens or burgesses, and so, bearing in
mind the evidence of the inquisition of Edward III, it
may be surmised that, in 1125 or 1126, Henry for the first
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 171
time during his reign " demised the town of Dorchester
to the burgesses at a certain firma per annum."
Be this as it may, his coinage here commences with
type 265 (1126-1128), and is continued in type 262
(1128-1131). During the issue of the latter type it
ceases for ever, and this occurred in the actual year of the
Roll 1129-30, before type 262 had been long in circula-
tion. The reason for this assertion is disclosed by the
entry in the Roll of the return to the burgesses of 40s.
from the exchequer by the King's writ in pardon "pro
paupertate eorum." A similar expression, but returning
25s., occurs in the same Roll in the case of the burgesses
of Tamworth, and their mint also was closed for ever
during the issue of type 262, and therefore also in 1129-30.
(See Tamworth.) The explanation why 40s., and not the
whole of their auxilium, was returned to Dorchester, is
this. Under the custom recorded by Domesday, 40s. had
to be paid for the dies "whenever the money was
changed." The money had been changed in 1128, on
the introduction of type 262, and so, as the burgesses
were too poor to continue their mint, they now returned
the dies, and the exchequer remitted to them in 1129
what they had paid in the previous year. The passage,
therefore, also proves that the mint was at that time
farmed to the burgesses. The parallel case of Colchester
has already been instanced on page 165.
Osbern, the moiieyer who revived the mint in 1126,
was probably one of the family of Osberns, moneyers of
Salisbury under William II and Henry I.
COINS.
OSBERN : ON : DOEE . fiENR .... RE 262
Watford find. As to the moneyer, see above.
172 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
. N : DOEEEES VS EE 265
British Museum. Presented by Mr. D. H.
Haigh. Owing to double striking tbe name
of the mint appears to be DOEEEEES.
ON DOEEEES 5 265
Late Capt. James. From a MS. note by Mr.
Cuff in Mr. W. J. Webster's copy of Ruding.
The coin of type 251, assigned by Mr. Haw-
kins to this mint, is the British Museum
specimen of Dover.
DOVER (KENT).
DOFERAN, DOFEA, DOFRIS, DoRFBis, DovEKiA ; Domesday,
DOVEBE ; Pipe Roll, DOVKA.
The position of Dover, commanding the shortest passage
to the Continent, has been fortified as a protection to our
commerce and to our coast from time immemorial. So
strong were the then existing earthworks that the Romans
were content to depart from their usual custom, and accepted
much of the general design of the old fortification for the
plan of their own camp. Hence, entombed in the walls
of Dover Castle are the materials and structure of nearly
every century for two thousand years at least. On the
advent of the Saxons, its proximity to the Isle of Thanet
would render Dover one of their earliest possessions in
this country, and under them it continued to flourish in
importance until, in the reign of the Confessor, it had
become the chief port on the south coast. Edward the
Confessor granted, or confirmed, to its burgesses a charter
of incorporation by tenure of supplying and manning 20
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 173
ships for the King's fleet, a custom which in later times
developed into the confederation of the " Cinque Ports."
1066. From Hastings the Conqueror marched on Dover,
which, although " the position was thought to be im-
pregnable, the castle standing on the summit of a
steep rock overhanging the sea, was surrendered
without a blow." Nevertheless the Normans looted
and burnt the town. William, however, ordered it
to be rebuilt at his own cost, and spent eight days in
strengthening the fortifications of the castle. This
would be Earl Godwin's stockade. (Of. Orderic.)
1067. William grants " Dover and all Kent " to Odo,
Bishop of Bayeux. Orderic calls him " Earl Palatine
of Kent." In consequence of a private feud, Eustace,
Count of Boulogne, attacks Dover, but is repulsed by
the garrison, assisted by the burgesses. (Orderic.)
1069. In like manner they repel an attempted landing of
the Danish fleet. (Orderic.)
1082. The fall of Odo, who is imprisoned at Rouen until
the King's death. (Orderic.)
1086. Domesday notes. In the time of the Confessor
Dover paid 18, of which Earl Godwin had the third
penny. The burgesses supplied 20 ships to the
King's fleet for 15 days in every year, each being
manned by 21 men. The customs of Dover are set
out in detail as they existed " when King William
came into England." In that year " the town itself
was burnt," and on that account it was impossible to
estimate its value when the Bishop of Bayeux received
it. Now it is assessed at 40, but nevertheless
pays '54, namely, 24 in pennies, which are [credited
as ?J 20 to the ounce, to the King ; 30 by number
to the Earl. Dover was a market town, and had a
Guild of the Burgesses, but the mint is not men-
tioned.
1087. Odo is released by the King on his deathbed.
(Orderic.) Odo does not, however, appear to have
regained Dover, for the castle is now held by tenure
of knight service by eight Kentish knights.
1101. King Henry orders the boat-carles (captains of the
ships of Dover, Sandwich, Hastings, Hythe, and
Romney) to protect the coast against Duke Robert's
landing, but the latter "so tampered with the fidelity
of some of them by promises of various kinds, that
174 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
throwing off their allegiance they deserted to him and
became his pilots to England." (Florence.)
1121-2. At some time during his reign, probably now,
Henry granted the castle of Dover to Robert, Earl of
Gloucester, and he in turn appointed his relative,
Walkelin Maminot castellan. (Of. Orderic.)
1130. Pipe Boll notes. The "firma of Dover," including
the ship money and customs, is 93 19s. 10d., partly
by number and partly blanched, or, say, 90 net. The
burgesses owe 60 marks of silver upon a plea of
Henry de Port (Justiciary).
When our coins tell us that the mints of Dover,
Hastings, Romney, and Sandwich, all sprang into exist-
ence during the great Danish invasions of the reign of
Ethelred II, and when Domesday tells us that the bur-
gesses held most of these towns under the custom of
supplying ships to the King's navy, it is reasonable to
infer that the King then released his privileges in the
burgs to the burgesses in exchange for such service and a
firma, or what was equivalent to a firma. These privi-
leges would include the mints, and this accounts for the
fact, that in none of these four instances are they
mentioned in the Survey.
It is true that the Confessor's charter to Dover has been
questioned, but from Domesday it is quite clear that the
burgesses in his reign held their town upon the above
custom in addition to a firma. and this could only have
arisen by charter.
Under the Saxons Dover was a prolific mint, type after
type appearing in regular succession. Upon the Con-
quest William gave the town and therefore the mint
to Odo, and the coinage naturally at once becomes of an
intermittent character, until his fall in 1082, from which,
date his lordship of the town ceases.
William had favoured the men of Dover, for even when
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 175
his followers burnt the town, in 1066, he paid for its
rebuilding. Their stubborn defence against Eustace and
the Danish fleet also entitled them to his consideration,
and it is probable that he, upon Odo's fall in 1082, at once
regranted to them their ancient privileges, although he
increased the firma to 54. In 1086 Domesday records
that 30 (no doubt the third part after adding the value
of the ships and customs, hence the 90 firma of the Pipe
Roll) of it was payable to the earl Odo, as Earl of Kent
but this was merely for purposes of account, awaiting the
possible revival of the earldom, for the whole would at that
time be received by the King under the forfeiture.
From about 1082, therefore, when the burgesses again
regained their ancient customs, coinage here once more
becomes strictly consecutive, and so continues until the
death of Rufus in 1100.
On Henry's accession the sequence is continued and his
first type, 251 (1100-1102), is issued, but now comes a
change. We have seen how close was the association
which seems to have existed between the privileges of the
burgesses (including their mint), and their service of
ships. So when history tells us that the boat carles in
1101 betrayed Henry upon his emergency, and deserted
to Robert of Normandy, only one result can be expected.
Henry's virtues did not include magnanimity, for he
wreaked his vengeance upon every noble of the land who
had then wavered from his cause, and so the burgesses
suffered for the treachery of their fleet. Their privileges
are withdrawn, and the mint is closed.
Although the burgesses, as is evidenced by the Pipe
Roll, continued to hold their town at firma, they are
apparently paying an annual fine of sixty marks, and so
their privileges are, no doubt, curtailed. The mint, there-
176
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
fore, remained dormant until towards the end of the reign
of Stephen, when it was temporarily reopened, perhaps
during his visit here in 1154, which terminated in his
death. With that event, the mint of Dover closed for
ever. The moneyer's name upon the coins we have of
that hrief revival is ADAM, and in the 1157-8 Roll,
Adam Monetarim of Dover is recorded as owing 50
marks of silver " for his redemption." Perhaps he issued
the money without authority, or continued to issue it after
Henry II's accession.
COIN.
4-GOLDPira ON DOFI .frHNRI EEX N 251
British Museum. This moneyer coined here
for the Williams.
The coin of type 253, described in the Whit-
bourn Catalogue as of Dover and pierced,
is the Marsham and Montagu coin of Stam-
ford, 6ODEIE ON STEN.
DURHAM.
DUNHOLME, DUNOLM, DURHAM, DUBEM, DuBESME ; Pipe Roll,
DUNELM.
Unlike the cities and towns hitherto dealt with, Durham
in the day of King Henry could boast of little antiquity,
for its foundations were then but a century old. Until
995, the natural strength of this dun-holm or island hill
for the horse-shoe bend of the river almost renders it
such had remained neglected, or at least there is no
historical record of its prior occupation. But in that
year it was chosen for the shrine of the wandering remains
of St. Cuthbert and of the holy Bede. As such it at
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 177
once became the seat of the ancient See of Lindisfarne ;
the name of which was now changed to Durham.
Cam den tells us that the Palatine rights of the Bishops
of Durham were founded upon immemorial prescription
and proceeded from a principle of devotion to St. Cuth-
bert ; that whatever lands were given to him should be
held by him with the same freedom as the Princes who
gave them held the rest of their estates. Thus in
Henry II's time, the King's writ was only supposed to
run in the Palatinate by the courtesy of the Bishop.
William of Malmesbury, describing the Norman city in
those days, says :
" Durham is a hill, rising by little and little from the valley,
by an easy and gentle ascent, to the very top ; and, notwith-
standing that by its rugged situation and craggy precipice the
access to it is cut off on all sides, yet lately they have built a
castle upon the hill."
1069. Robert de Comines, to whom William had given
the county, enters the city with 500 men. But he
and his retinue are massacred by the citizens.
(Orderic.)
1070. William, in retaliation, lays waste Northumbria,
and for nine years the land remained " a mere dreary
waste, and between York and Durham there was not
one inhabited town." (Hoveden.)
1071. Bishop Egel wine joins Here ward's revolt, is taken
prisoner at Ely, and dies at Abingdon. (Sax. Chron.)
1072. Walcher of Liege is appointed his successor.
(Hoveden.) The King, returning from Scotland,
" built a castle at Durham, where the Bishop and
his people might enjoy security from the incursions of
the enemy." (Hoveden.)
1075. Bishop Walcher purchases the earldom of North-
umbria. (Monasticon.)
1080. Bishop Walcher is murdered by the Northumbrians
at Gateshead, and so William again ravages the
country. (Hoveden.)
1081. William De Carileph appointed Bishop.
1082. The King's great Westminster Charter to the
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. A A
178 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Bishop of Durham in response to a bull of requests
by Pope Gregory, consolidating the Palatine powers
as " omnes dignitates et libertates quse ad regis
coronam pertinent ab omni servicio et inquietudine
imperpetuum liberas munitas et quietas. " (Monast.)
1088. Bishop William joins Odo's rebellion; "yet at
this very time the King (Rufus) relied on his dis-
cretion as a faithful councillor, he being a man of
great sagacity, and the whole commonwealth of
England was under his administration." (Florence.)
" The King afterwards sent an army to Durham, and
besieged the castle, and the Bishop capitulated and
surrendered it, and he gave up his bishopric and
went to Normandy." (Sax. Chron.)
1091. William II visits Durham and restores Bishop
Carileph to his See.
1093. The Bishop commences the great Norman cathe-
dral.
1096. Death of William De Carileph. Rufus retains
the revenues of the Palatine See for three years.
(Orderic.)
1099. Ranulf Flambard appointed Bishop, " a man of
acute intellect, handsome and fluent, cruel and am-
bitious, rapacious and arrogant." (Orderic.) He
was treasurer and chief justiciary of England.
1100. Almost immediately upon his accession, Henry
arrests Ranulf, and commits him " in fetters " to the
Tower of London. (Orderic. )
1101. His extraordinary escape. He joins Duke Robert
in Normandy. (Orderic, &c.)
1106. On Duke Robert's defeat at Tinchebrai Ranulf
offers to surrender Lisieux in exchange for restora-
tion to his bishopric. This Henry accepts. (Orderic.)
1107. Ranulf attends the synod at Canterbury. (Flo-
rence.)
1119. Is at Henry's court in Normandy. (Florence.)
1121. Founds Norham Castle. (Hoveden.)
1128. Death of Bishop Ranulf in September. (S. of
Durham, Huntingdon.) Henry retains the revenues
of the Palatinate lor nearly five years, appointing
Geoffrey Escolland and John de Amundevilla seques-
trators. (S. of Durham.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Geoffrey Escolland returns the
accounts, and John de Amundevilla certifies the pay-
ments. The revenue of the bishopric for the previous
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 179
year, 1128-9, was 401 Is, . The Archbishop of York
had lately visited the diocese, and the King of Scot-
land had passed through it on his return from Henry's
court. Many manors are still waste. 4 4s. is paid
to make up the full number (of pennies) deficient on
tale when the Earl of Gloucester and Brian Fitz
Count audited the exchequer accounts (at Winchester)
for the previous year. [See page 8.] The burgesses
of Durham are amerced in 100 shillings on the plea
of Eustace Fitz John, the King's justiciary, but are
allowed 60 shillings for the burning of their houses
(probably an annual grant originating in the devasta-
tions of William's time), 40 shillings is spent on two
ships, Anchitel de Worcester accounts for 40 shil-
lings which he had received from Oliver " de pecunia "
of the Bishop of Durham. [The phrase "de pecunia "
occurs very often in the Roll, and it must be pointed
out that unfortunately it does not refer to money as
currency. "Pecunia" is derived from " pecus,"
cattle, hence chattel, and it is in this sense that it is
used throughout the Roll, and usually in cases of suc-
cession to property of a deceased person. So it may
in future be translated " personal effects."]
1133. Geoffrey, the King's Chancellor, is appointed
Bishop.
1183- " The dies for the money at Durham used to pay
10 marks, but Henry II, as he established the dies in
Newcastle, reduced the payment of 10 marks to 8,
and proportionately reduced the fines '" [when the
types were changed], (Boldon Book.)
Hitherto it has Veen supposed that we have no Saxon
coins of Durham ; but the mint was certainly in operation
at some time during the reign of either William I or II, for
we have coins of a single type of one of them struck here
bearing the appropriate moneyer's name EVTDBRHT.
This is the PA+S type (Hawkins 241 and 242), which
composed the bulk of the coins in the great Beaworth
hoard, and we shall presently see how simple it now is to
define its date of issue.
Before doing so, however, it is necessary to explain the
180 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
passage in the Boldon Book and prove that prior to the
year 1174, the sole privilege of coinage at Durham was
vested in the Bishops Palatine.
1252. " Upon the testimony of various persons worthy
of credit, and the exhibition of ancient dies and of
money struck from them," Henry III allowed that the
Bishops "were accustomed to have their dies at
Durham, and he restored to the then Bishop seizin
of his dies, to hold them in the Church of Durham as
his predecessors used to have them."
1293. Edward I directed a writ of inquiry as to what
were the ancient privileges of the Bishops of Durham,
and particularly as to their right of coinage. It was
found that they " had enjoyed all royal privileges
within the liberty of Durham from the time of the
conquest of England and before, without any inter-
ruption, as of the right and liberty of the Church of
St. Cuthbert in Durham." (Ruding.)
There are several other records to the same effect, but
these are sufficient to prove that the Palatine rights of
the Bishops included that of coinage. Indeed it would
be remarkable if that were not so, for even the King's
writ did not run in the diocese prior to 1174 (as Henry II
admits in his Woodstock charter, 1163-1166 Mound],
and so up to that period the sole right of coining at
Durham was vested in the Bishop, who " enjoyed all royal
privileges."
From the 1293 writ it is evident that this right dated
from about the time of the Conquest, but whether the
words " and before " were mere general terms to show
that there was no clearly ascertained date of origin or
whether they referred to a right (although not exercised)
under the general " royal privileges," or again whether
such words were true, is not so clear. It is, however, the
paramount principle of this work to trust the evidence
of our early records throughout in preference to accepting
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HFNRY I. 181
any theory to the contrary. Therefore, it is submitted
that the coins of Ethelred II reading ^EADSI MO DVNLI
and of Canute reading ^.LEOOFEIE M DVM, hitherto
given to Dunwich, in Suffolk, must be now assigned to
Durham. There is no record of the existence of any mint
at Dunwich, and the words " from the time of the Con-
quest and before," are exactly the vague terms in which
one would even to-day describe the origin of the mint of
Durham, in view of the fact that we have these coins
struck during the first quarter of a century following the
establishment of the See, and none afterwards until the
reign of William I.
So supreme was the jurisdiction of the Palatinate that
it came neither within the scope of Domesday nor of the
early Pipe Rolls except during a sequestration. In 1174,
however, Henry II altered all this. King Stephen's
nephew, Hugh de Pudsey, was the then Bishop, and Henry
having cause to suspect his allegiance compelled him to
deliver possession of the castle of Durham. In 1177,
Henry delivered
"to Eoger de Conyars the custody of the fortress of Durham,
which the King had taken from Hugh, the Bishop of Durham,
because he had only made a feint of serving him in the civil
wars. In consequence of this, the Bishop gave him 2,000
marks of silver to regain his favour on condition that his castles
should be left standing." (Hoveden.)
Thus the Palatine authority was for a time broken, and
the King confiscated the mint and appointed his own
moneyers (seemingly three). One of these, William by
name, he presently removed to Newcastle, which was then
increasing in importance owing to the imprisonment of
the King of Scotland in its castle. In 1183 he ordered a
return to be made of his new possessions, similar in its
182 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
details to that of Domesday. This is known to us as " The
Boldon Book," and its entry, as quoted above, is thus quite
consistent with the history of the mint. Incidentally we
notice that the date of the establishment of the Newcastle
mint must have been after 1174 and before 1183. The
following grant is also now explained.
1196. " King Richard gave to Philip of Poitiers, .Bishop
elect, license to make money in his city of Durham,
a permission which had not been granted to his pre-
decessors for a long time back" [i.e. since 1174 or
1177].
In this we have direct evidence that a grant of coinage
required a confirmation charter upon every succession of
the grantee, and that the Prince-Bishops of the Palatinate
held their privilege by grant and not by prescription.
To return to the " time when King William came into
England," as Domesday would say. Egelwine, the Saxon
Bishop, does not tender his submission to the Conqueror,
and therefore the latter grants the earldom to Robert de
Comines. This was a severance of the Palatinate, but the
earl was slain on the night of his entry into Durham.
Egelwine, after a temporary flight across the Border, joins
Hereward's revolt in 1071, is imprisoned and dies. If he
had coined at all, his money would certainly not have
borne the name of a Norman King upon it. Walcher is
appointed his successor, and about 1075 purchases the out-
standing earldom, and in 1080 he is murdered by the
Northumbrians. In 1081 William de Carileph succeeds.
Up to this date the county had been in a most dis-
turbed state, and it is evident that after the severance of
the earldom in 1069 the two Norman Bishops had not
been recognised as Bishops Palatine or exercised their
ancient privileges as such, for now Pope Gregory intervenes
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 183
by issuing a bull requesting the King to restore and con-
solidate the rights of the Palatinate. This is done by
the great Charter to Durham, granted by King William,
in Council, at Westminster, in the sixteenth year of his
reign (1082). It is set out at length in the Monasticon ;
but, briefly, it granted to Bishop Carileph and his suc-
cessors, and to the Church of St. Cuthbert, all the ancient
rights of St. Cuthbert and every privilege within the
diocese that the King himself had elsewhere. Now, and
only now during the whole of the reigns of the two
Williams has a bishop, so far as is recorded, the right and
opportunity of coining at Durham, and therefore the date
of the coins of the PA+S type must be between 1082 and
1087.
On the accession of Rufus in 1087, Bishop Carileph joined
Odo's rebellion before there was any probability of his hav-
ing received a confirmation charter from the new King. He
was besieged in Durham in 1088, and exiled to Normandy.
In September, 1091, upon the emergency of an invasion by
the Scottish King, Rufus visited Durham and restored
Carileph to his See, though not necessarily to favour, and
it is unlikely that he ever confirmed the Palatine charter
to him. On the contrary, he took this opportunity of
curtailing the powers of the See by depriving it of the
ruined town of Carlisle, which he converted into a royal
fortress. Carileph died in September, 1096, and for three
years Rufus retained the revenues in his own hands. In
1099, two months only before the King's death, Ranulf
Flambard was appointed to the See. Hence we have no
coins struck at Durham during the reign of William II.
For the third time on a Norman King's accession
trouble falls on Durham, Flambard is immediately arrested
by Henry and confined in the Tower. He escapes to
184 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Normandy in the following year, and from now to the
battle of Tinchebrai in September, 1106, he is the most
dangerous of Henry's enemies in Duke Robert's camp.
At this time Henry's quarrel with Archbishop Anselm is
at its height, and therefore when the wily Bishop offers
to surrender his castle and province of Lisieux to him
in ex change for the restoration of the See, Henry accepted
the compromise, and " restored to Flambard, with whom
he was reconciled, his bishopric of Durham."
This is a very different matter from a spontaneous
reconciliation and restoration of the Palatine privileges,
and with the exception of certain charters to which his
attestation was probably necessary in his official capacity,
it is many years before we read of Flambard being received
at the King's Court. In 1119, however, he visits Henry
in Normandy and supports his contention at the Council
of Rheims which, perhaps, paves his way to his ultimate
restoration to favour. In 1122 Henry visits Durham,
probably to attend the consecration of the new Cathedral,
which is now sufficiently completed.
In or about 1127 the silver mines on the borders of
Cumberland and Northumberland, but within the ancient
" lands of St. Cuthbert," are discovered. It is now to
the mutual benefit of King and Bishop that the mint at
Durham should be revived, for the King claims the
royalties from the mines and the Bishop the profit from
the dies. Henry farms the mines and grants a mint to
the burghers of Carlisle, and it is essential that he
should settle any question that might arise as to whether
he or the Bishop was entitled to the revenue of this
discovery. The most natural protection of his claim
would be by a charter confirming to the Bishop the
Palatine privileges other than those of royal mines.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 185
This is supposition, but we have evidence from the coins
that both the mints of Durham and Carlisle now issue type
262 (1128-1131). Carlisle, as we have seen, was a newly
created mint and that of Durham had been in abeyance
for forty years.
But in the autumn of 1128 Bishop Flambard dies and
therefore the few rare coins we have of Durham during
this reign must have been issued at the very commence-
ment of this type.
The great revenues of the See were a temptation to
Henry, and consequently he did not appoint a successor
to Flambard until 1133. In the meantime the King's
commissioners were in charge of the Palatinate. There
was a curious custom at Durham during a vacancy in the
See. The key of the castle was suspended over the tomb
of St. Cuthbert in the Cathedral, to imply that as the
castle had been granted to St. Cuthbert, it would be
sacrilege for any other than his episcopalian successor to
use it. It should be noticed that the privileges in the great
charter of 1082 and the seizin of the dies in the writ of
1293 were granted to, and according to the rights of, the
Church of St. Cuthbert, and that the grant of the latter
in the writ of 1252 was " to hold the dies in the Church
of Durham as the Bishop's predecessors used to have
them." Hence we may infer that during a sequestration
they also were similarly placed over the saint's tomb. But
in any case we have no instance either here or elsewhere
of coinage being continued between the death of a grantee
and the confirmation grant to his successor. In 1133 the
appointment of the new Bishop Geoffrey, the Chancellor,
was between Whitsuntide and August, and early in the
latter month the King sailed to Normandy, never to return
alive. Hence there was little opportunity for a confir-ina-
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. B B
186
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
tion charter to the new Bishop ; his name is not to be
found upon the King's charters, nor was he consecrated
at the date of Henry's departure. We have, therefore,
no Durham coins issued by him during this reign.
COINS.
*OEDPI : ON : DVEIxAM :
Watford find.
,J,fiENKI[E]VS: 262
.frOKDPI : ON DVRfcAM *I\ENEIEYS
British Museum. From Mr. Rashleigh.
262
frOKDPI ON DVRIiAM ^.riENRIEVS 262
Watford find. Perhaps the Museum specimen.
The specimen of 255, described as of this mint,
in the Durden Catalogue, 1892, is Mr. A.
H. Sadd's London coin, reading iBALD-
PI>E ON LVN.
EXETER (DEVONSHIRE).
EAXANCEASTBE, EAXECEASTRE, EXACESTK.E, EXCESTBA; Domes-
day, " Exon " Domesday, and Pipe Roll, EXONIA.
This ancient British and Roman city was one of the
principal burgs of the West Saxon Kings. In the reign
of Alfred the Danes seized it, and it was for some time
the centre of their defence in the West. Athelstan forti-
fied the city " with towers, and a wall of squared stone,"
which, however, probably means that he restored the
Roman walls, for they were still standing in Norman
times. The author of The Gesta describes Exeter in
Stephen's days as
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 187
" A large city, ranking, they say, the fourth in England. It is
surrounded by ancient Roman walla, and is famous for its sea
fisheries, for abundance of meat, and for its trade and com-
merce."
The see of Exeter was established in the reign of the
Confessor.
1067. The citizens close their gates against William,
" offering to pay tribute according to ancient custom."
They slay many of his army, but after a short
siege surrender the city. (Orderic, Sax. Chron.)
William " selected a spot within the walls for erecting
a castle, and left there Baldwin Fitz Gilbert de
Meules, and other knights of eminence, to complete
the work and garrison the place." (Orderic.)
1086. Domesday notes. In the Confessor's time this
city never paid geld except when London, York,
and Winchester were assessed, and this was half a
mark of silver to military service. The city ren-
dered service whenever there was an expedition
against the enemy by land or by sea. Now the King
has in the city nearly 800 houses, of which 275
pay customs. These pay 18 per annum. Of this
B[aldwin Fitz Gilbert], the sheriff, has 6 by weight
after refining. Forty-eight houses have been laid
waste since the King came into England. The
Bishop of Exeter has a church in the city, paying
one mark, and 17 houses paying 10s. 10d., and two
are laid waste by fire. The burgesses have 12 caru-
cates of land outside the city.
1090. Death of Baldwin Fitz Gilbert (Orderic). He is
succeeded as to his English possessions by his second
or third son, Richard de Redvers (but see below).
Richard de Redvers revolts from Rufus and joins
Henry's defence of the Cotentin, Normandy.
(Orderic.)
1101. Richard de Redvers supports Henry's cause in
England against Duke Robert, and is admitted to his
councils. (Orderic.)
1101, Christmas. Witnesses the Colchester charter.
1107. His death (Florence and Orderic). He is suc-
ceeded by his son, Baldwin de Redvers, who, in the
Carisbrooke charter of Stephen's reign, quoted by
188 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Mr. Round, and also in his charter to St. James'
Priory, Exeter, calls him his father.
1112. Foundation of the Norman cathedral. (Exon
Chron.)
1128. Henry gives Matilda, daughter of Richard de
Redvers, in marriage to William de Roumare.
(Orderic.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Baldwin de Redvers accounts
for 500 marks of silver for his forestry rights over the
county of Devon, of which he pays an instalment of
100, and similarly pays 20 of 42 11s. 4d. for the
previous year's military service for his lands. Pay-
ments are allowed for supplies to the four vigiles of
the castle of Exeter, showing that it is still a royal
demesne. The port and market dues are each re-
turned at 60s., and 25 12s. 6d. [being two-thirds] of
the firma of the city, is paid by the Sheriff to the
Canons of the Holy Trinity, London. There is a
further reference to the city, but the context is
obliterated.
1130. Adeliza, widow of Richard de Redvers, grants a
charter to the church of Salisbury.
1181. Sep. 8. Baldwin de Redvers is at the North-
ampton council and witnesses the Salisbury charter.
The name of Exeter first appears upon our coinage on
one of the late types of Alfred the Great, struck here no
doubt after the expulsion of the Danes from the West in
895. The Law of Athelstan authorised the mint to have
two money ers, and his coins seem to corroborate that
number as coining here at a time. From his reign to
the date of the Conquest the name of every King appears
upon the Exeter money, but the number of moneyers was
increased to four.
As the mint is not mentioned in Domesday it follows
that it had either been farmed to the burgesses or
granted to the territorial lord. The burgesses, however,
did not then pay a firma, but their houses were rated
directly to the King at 18. Of this, 6 went to Bald-
win Fitz Gilbert, to whom William, in 1067, had entrusted
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 189
the castle. The six pounds is obviously the tertius de-
narius of the town. A grant of the tertius denarius of the
pleas of a County constituted an earldom with all its
almost sovereign powers, and pro rata, a grant of that of
a town carried with it all the minor privileges annexed
to the lordship of the burg, and the invariable rule seems
to have been that whenever the tertius denarius of a mint
town existed it carried the mint with it. (As to the dis-
tinction between the two classes of " third pennies " see
Mr. Round's Geoffrey de Mandeville).
Baldwin was cousin to the Conqueror, and materially
assisted him in the invasion. He had large possessions
in Normandy, including the castles of Brionne and Sap,
and was called Baldwin the Viscount. That he did
possess the mint of Exeter is proved by a glance at its
coinage under the two Williams. From 1067 to and
inclusive of the first type of William II. (say 1087-1089),
every type is consecutively issued from Exeter, and after
that none, for he died in 1090.
The link identifying Richard de Redvers as Richard,
son of Baldwin Fitz Gilbert, has been questioned. But
Orderic tells us that at the date of the Conquest there
were two brothers, Richard and Baldwin Fitz Gilbert,
and the Charter of St. Pere de Chartres of 1060 mentions
three brothers, Richard, Baldwin, and William de Redvers.
Baldwin Fitz Gilbert, again, had three sons, Robert, Wil-
liam, and Richard (Orderic), and Baldwin de Redvers
also had a son, Richard. Moreover, under 1136 the Gesta
speaks of Baldwin de Redvers II, afterwards Earl of
Devon, as a man of the highest rank and descent, which
is applicable to the descendant of Gilbert, the grandson
of Richard I, Duke of Normandy, but incompatible with
the son of Richard de Redvers, if he were the first of his
190 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
name to attain any position of eminence. Again, we
know that Richard de Redvers was nephew of William
Fitz Osborn, cousin to William I, and Baldwin Fitz
Gilbert was also a cousin of that King. Therefore, in
view of these coincidences and of the fact that on Henry's
accession the Redvers family appear as lords of Exeter
without any explanation or notice of a new grant, the
evidence of identification is strong, for, as most of the
barons of that period were known by half a dozen names
of description, the difference of surname is of little
moment. Moreover, the Cotton MS., Julii B. 10, states
such to have been the case. But if this is not correct, it
makes little difference to the story of the Exeter mint, for
it merely changes Henry's " confirmation " charter to De
Redvers into an entirely fresh grant of the lordship of
Exeter to that family.
To return to the death of Baldwin Fitz Gilbert of Exeter
in 1090. His eldest son Robert succeeded as usual to the
Norman estates, but soon afterwards he was expelled from
Brionne Castle by Duke Robert, so it is not surprising
that in the same year we find his " brother " Richard de
Redvers, the heir to Exeter, in league with Prince Henry
in the Co ten tin, who was " exasperated with the Duke
. . . and no less at variance with King William " (Orderic).
Until, therefore, the accession of Henry, Exeter remained
without its lord, and the mint was in abeyance.
In the passaare iust quoted from Orderic the name of
-L O J J.
Richard de Redvers follows that of Hugh, Earl of
Chester, and, as we have seen under that mint, " Hugh,
Earl of Chester, and Robert de Beleme with other
barous who were at that time in Normandy," were not at
Henry's coronation in August, 1100, but "put their affairs
in Normandy in order, and hastening to England offered
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 191
due submission to the new King, and having done
homage to him received confirmation in their possessions
and all their dignities with royal gifts " (Orderic).
Richard was probably one of these, and as we have no
certain evidence that any one of the four mints under
the jurisdiction of these lords namely, Exeter, Chichester,
Shrewsbury or Chester struck type 251 (1100-1102), it
seems probable that they stayed some months in Nor-
mandy to put their aifairs in order.
Richard de Redvers is also mentioned in connection
with Earl Hugh (and therefore after the latter's arrival
in England), as being admitted to Henry's councils, and
we read that upon Duke Robert's invasion in the autumn
of 1101, " Robert de Mellent, Richard de Redvers, and
many other stout barons rallied round the King "
(Orderic). Between September, 1101, and 1104, his
name appears as a witness to several English charters.
Duke Robert landed at Portsmouth, and, according to
Wace, the two brothers met and arranged their treaty in
"a forest district called Hantone." This has been con-
strued as Hampton Court, but it is, of course, Southamp-
ton, on the then boundary of the New Forest. It was
probably on this occasion that Henry granted to De
Redvers the neighbouring manor of Christchurch and
shortly afterwards a confirmation charter of the lordship
of Exeter (erroneously said to have been of the earldom),
as some reward for his assistance at this crisis. The
Cotton MS. tells us that King Henry I. granted to " his
beloved and faithful Richard de Redvers," first Tiverton
and afterwards the Honour of Plympton, with other
places, and the tertius denarius of the County " (probably
an error for the tertius denarius of the City of Exeter
only) ; " after this he obtained from the said King the
192 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Isle of "Wight." Whether this is strictly accurate or not,
it proves at least that some time elapsed between the date
of Henry's accession and that of the confirmation charter
of Exeter to De Redvers. Hence type 251 (1100-1102)
does not appear upon these coins. This, therefore, brings
us to 1102, and type 254 (1102-1104) now appears from
the Exeter mint. Between 1104 and 1106, as one of the
lords of the Cotentin and castellan of Yernon, he would be
with the army in Normandy and at Tinchebrai, and so
type 253 is absent from the Exeter coins. He, how-
ever, returned to Exeter, and died there in 1107, "a
baron of England," as Orderic calls him ; and so type
252 (1106-1108) is in evidence from the mint. He
married Adeliza, daughter of William Peverell of Notting-
ham, as appears by a charter of Earl Baldwin in Stephen's
reign, and she survived her husband until 1130 at least.
He left three sons, Baldwin, who succeeded to most
of his possessions, William and Robert. Baldwin, who
was probably a minor at that time, for his grandfather
was living up to 1090, and he himself survived his
father for nearly fifty years, seems to have succeeded to
all his father's possessions in Normandy, for he was cas-
tellan of Vernon and Lord of Nehou. English chroniclers
are silent as to him until the year 1131, and it does not
appear that he ever resided in his father's lordship of
Exeter until about the year 1128. The grounds for this
supposition are the following. First : The absence of his
name in English chronicles or charters prior to the year
1129, whereas after that date it constantly appears.
Second : The fact that he witnesses charters in Nor-
mandy in 1123 and 1125. Third : The entries in the
1129-30 Pipe Roll that he is then paying off 500 by
instalments of 100 a year for the Forestry rights of
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 193
Devon, probably part of the relief upon his return and
succession to his father's estates ; and of the item for
military auxilium from his land for the previous year
(1128), which rather suggests that he had arrived in that
year. Fourth : The Gesta tell us under the year 1136
that " he had brought armed bands into the city (of Exe-
ter) among the peaceable inhabitants and was reducing
not only them but all the neighbourhood under his
dominion." This far better describes the comparatively
recent entry of a Norman stranger into the city than
the revolt of an English Baron resident there for nearly
thirty years.
To return to the coinage. From the death of Richard
in 1107 to the years 1112-1114 we have, therefore, no
coins bearing the name of this mint. In 1112, however,
occurred the foundation of the Norman Cathedral by
Bishop William de Warlewast. Unfortunately, the charter
is not extant, but the usual custom would be followed and
the presence of the lord of Exeter was necessary to
join in the grant of its lands and endowments. So Bald-
win, now probably of age, would visit his lordship of
Exeter on that occasion to receive his own confirmation
charter, and to then grant the charter of foundation to
the new church, which again would require a confirmation
charter from the King. It is therefore no mere coin-
cidence which gives us type 267 (1112-1114) of this
mint.
He next returns to England about 1128, or perhaps
came over with the Empress Matilda, for there is a
mutilated paragraph in the 1130 Pipe Roll under Devon-
shire which is more likely to refer to him than to anyone
else, namely, a grant to ". . . . according to the promises
which the King guaranteed to him when the Empress
VOL. I. FOURTH 8ERIES. U C
194 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
came into England." This is the more probable as he
devoted the rest of his life to her service, and according to
the Gesta, on the surrender of Exeter in 1136 his friends
pleaded with the King for his life because he had " never
sworn allegiance to Stephen, but only obeyed the com-
mands of his Liege-lord," meaning no doubt Geoffrey of
Anjou, for Robert of Gloucester could hardly be so called;
moreover, Earl Robert had not then declared against
Stephen. It was, too, about this date, 1128, that Bald-
win's sister Matilda was married to William de Roumare
of Lincoln.
We have, however, direct evidence that he was in
England for some time between 1130 and 1133, for his
name appears on several charters between those dates.
He was at the great Council of Northampton on Sep-
tember 8th, 1131, and swore allegiance to the Empress
also witnessing the Salisbury Charter on the same occasion.
Hence types 262 (1128-1131), and 255 (1131-1135) are
in plentiful evidence upon our Exeter coins. That he
held the tertius denarius of the city is also inferred by the
evidence of the charters of Queen Matilda, who died in
1118, of Queen Adelaide, and of the King at Northamp-
ton (in 1131), granting and confirming the remaining
" two parts of the revenue of the City of Exeter " to the
Priory of the Holy Trinity at London. Hence the curious
entry in the 1130 Pipe Roll that "25 12s. 6d. of the
firma of the city of Exeter was paid by the Sheriff to the
Canons of the Holy Trinity at London."
The mint was continued intermittently until the time
of the Edwards, and revived once or twice in compara-
tively modern times.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 195
COINS.
*[^J]LFPINE ON IEX * HENRI EEX 254
Montagu Sale, 1896, 3 14s. This moneyer
had coined here up to 1090.
. . LFPINE : ON : EX ... *I\ENBI BEX 252
Sir John Evans. 22 grs.
* BRAND : ON : E . . ST : .frlxENRIEVS B 262
Watford find. The moneyer is perhaps one of
the family of Brand who coined at Win-
chester and Wallingford for the Confessor.
* BRAND : ON : EE . ST *I\ENRIEVS B 262
Sainthill's Olla Podrida. 22 grs.
J-BRIxIEDPI : ON EXEE : *hENRIEVS : 255
Watford find. Four specimens. BRMEDPI
= BRIIxTPINE, a common moneyer'sname.
He continued to coin in Stephen's reign in
this county.
*BBI\IEDPI : ON : EXEE : ^IiENBlEVS 255
Sainthill's Olla Podrida. 22* grs.
*BRI\ EXEE : * IEVS 255
British Museum.
. BB EXEES : .frlxENRIEVS 255
Watford find.
. PUT (?) ON : EXEES 267
Bari find. PUT is possibly misread for
[B]BNT = BRAND. See above.
196 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
. . . AWI : OX : EXEES .frhEXRIE . . 255
Watford find. Probably for BBIhTWI
. . . ELI\I : ON : EX . . . IxENBIEVS B 255
Watford find. Two specimens. Probably for
BBIhTPI.
' * . . ON : EXEES : . hENRIEVS B 262
British Museum. Probably the money er
would be BBAND.
. . . ON EXEES ifrl\ S : 255
L. A. Lawrence. Probably from the Battle find.
Powell Sale, 1877. 255
GLOUCESTER.
GLEAWCEASTER, GLEATJCEASTEB, GLEAWAXCEASTEB, Q-LOVE-
CEASTER. GLOVERNIA, GLAVORNA, GLEVUM ; Domesday,
GLOWECESTRE ; Pipe Roll, GLOECESTBE.
Gloucester was a British city and Roman station at the
dawn of our history, and later the Cair-Glotc, or " fair
city " of Nennius. It was conquered by the Saxons in
577. Alfred the Great probably constituted it a royal city,
for it is mentioned as such in a charter of Eadgar. Ethel-
fleda was buried and Athelstan died here. The Danes
ravaged it on more than one occasion, and towards the
close of the Saxon era it had become customary for the
King to hold his Christmas Court at Gloucester.
1067. Brihtric, Ealdonnan of Gloucestershire, was im-
prisoned at Winchester, and died there. His estates
were given by William to his Queen Matilda, but these
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 197
estates would not include the royal city. Never-
theless, she is said to have caused the citizens to
be deprived of their charter of rights, and probably
thus acquired the city.
1088. November 2nd. Death of Queen Matilda. The
city, if hers, would now revert to the King.
1086. Domesday notes. In the Confessor's time the
city paid 86 to the King, and certain royalties of
honey and iron the latter, no doubt, from the
Forest of Dean for nails for the King's ships.
Now it returns 60 of 20 pennies to the ounce,
and from the mint the King has 20. Sixteen
houses had been demolished for the erection of the
castle, and 14 were laid waste probably burnt in the
troubles of 1067. Walter de Gloucester, son of
Roger de Pistres, was castellan of Gloucester.
1089. The present cathedral founded.
1090. The "Honour of Gloucester" formed by Wil-
liam II and granted to Robert Fitz Hamon. See
Bristol for the devolution of the Honour and history
of its grantees.
1100. July 15. Consecration of the cathedral. (Flo-
rence.)
1101. " The city of Gloucester was destroyed by fire,
together with the principal monastery (the cathe-
dral) and others, on Thursday, the 6th of June.
(Florence.)
1122. Lent. " Fire fell on the top of the tower, and
burned the whole monastery and all the treasures
in it excepting a tew books." (Sax. Chron.)
1123. Feb. 2. "The King sent his writs overall Eng-
land, and desired his bishops, his abbots, and his
thanes, that they should all come to the meeting of
his Witan at Gloucester on Candlemas Day, and
they obeyed." (Sax. Chron.)
1124. Henry " sent Hugh de Montfort to England,
and caused him to be put in strong bonds in the
castle of Gloucester." (Sax. Chron.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Milo Fitz Walter (de Gloucester)
is sheriff of the county, and outlays 7 6s. 2d. on the
work probably a continuation of the building of
the " Tower " of Gloucester. " The burgesses of
Gloucester owe 30 marks of silver if they should be
able to recover their effects (' pecuniam,' see p. 179)
by the King's justice, which were taken away from
198 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
them into Ireland." [This is probably an allowance
originally made to the citizens as a set-off against the
raid of "Harold's son with a fleet from Ireland" into
the mouth of the Avon in 1067. See p. 119.] The
city pays in auxilium 13 8s. 8d.
1134. Kobert, Duke of Normandy, dies in Cardiff Castle,
and is ceremoniously buried at Gloucester. (Wen-
do ver.)
The name of Gloucester first appears upon a coin of
Alfred the Great. Coins of Athelstan were also struck
here, and from Eadgar to the close of the Saxon period
the name of every King appears on the coinage of this
mint.
"We have seen that Gloucester was a royal city and
therefore the mint would belong to the King, though, as
it is not mentioned in Domesday as returning firma to the
Confessor, it was probably farmed to the citizens then, and
included in the 36 and royalties they paid to him.
This would be under the charter of which Queen Matilda
obtained the revocation in 1067. Gloucester must have
suffered at that time before it submitted to William, as
otherwise the fourteen houses mentioned in Domesday as
laid waste are unaccounted for. On the revocation of the
charter the city and mint would fall to the Queen and
so remain until her death in 1083.
That Gloucester was again the King's in 1086 is clear
from Domesday, and that the mint was then paying him
a firma of 20. This would be a payment " by number "
twenty pennies being credited as an ounce, for it was
not until the reign of Henry II that " one weight and
money [value] were established throughout the Kingdom
and every county bound by payment in a common
standard." (" Dialogue of the Exchequer.")
In 1090, William II formed the Honour of Gloucester,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 199
including the city of Bristol, and granted it to Robert
Fitz Hamon. Therefore both mints passed to him as
before described under Bristol.
On Henry's accession one would expect the same types
to be struck here under Robert Fitz Hamon as at Bristol,
viz., 254 (1102-4) and 253 (1104-1106). But in June,
1101, " the city of Gloucester was destroyed by fire," and
so between the limits for such, coinage, as explained under
the former mint, namely from 1102 to the autumn of
1104, any coinage here was most unlikely.
The subsequent coinage of this mint has already been
dealt with in detail under Bristol, and, therefore, it is
unnecessary to repeat it here.
It will, however, be noticed that when the Gloucester
mint re-opens under Earl Robert in 1121-1123, the
event is recorded for us by the curious "mule" coin
described and illustrated as Fig. O, under type 263,
page 72. The obverse is of that type (1119-1121), but
the reverse is of Hawkins' type IV (1121-1123). It is
barely requisite, therefore, to remark that the coin itself
could not have been issued until the latter date (1121-
1123). Nor does it follow that the obverse was from a
Gloucester die at all, for the mint had been dormant since
the reign of Rufus, and the moneyer, to restore the coin-
age, would almost certainly have been imported from
elsewhere. He probably brought this obverse die with
him, as, if type 263 had ever been struck here, we should
expect to find it represented in its entirety both here and
at Bristol, which is not the case. Still, there is no objec-
tion on the ground of date to 263 having been a Gloucester
type, for it was still current until about Michaelmas,
1121, which is well within Mr. Round's limits for
the date of the creation of the Earldom of Gloucester.
200 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
The only difference it would make would either be that
Robert received the charter of his earldom within the
first six months of Mr. Round's limit of time, or that
upon his marriage he received a first charter of confirma-
tion in Fitz Hamon's Honour of Gloucester.
But there is a little affirmative evidence that this
obverse die was really brought from the London mint.
When Earl Robert revived the coinage here after an
interval of so many years, the most natural mint for him
to borrow a money er from would be that of his father at
London. This moneyer at Gloucester spells his name
ELFPINE on the mule coin (1121-1123) and ALFPINE
on types 262 (1123-1131) and 255 (1131-1135). Now all
these conditions fit in exactly with the history of
ALFPINE of London, and as the question of the migra-
tion of moneyers is of some importance, this case in
point may be taken as an example of the general system.
No man could or would undertake the responsibilities
and dangers of the office of a moneyer unless he had first
thoroughly acquired the experience and art of coining. We
know that William Fitz Otho, the hereditary designer of
the dies, had to serve his apprenticeship, and we may take
it that amongst the moneyers whose trade was so much
akin to his a similar system of apprenticeship prevailed.
Therefore, when a mint had lain dormant for years, and
the old moneyers had either died or obtained office in other
mints, it was necessary, upon its revival, to obtain a
qualified moneyer from elsewhere. He would initiate
the first coinage, receive apprentices from the district,
and, probably, when he was no longer required, return to
his own people and town. Mr. L A. Lawrence, therefore,
was right when he pointed out> in his paper on the Barn-
staple mint, in 1897, that our coins seem to indicate that,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 201
in some instances at least, the same moneyer's name
appears at more mints than one. A moneyer, too, who
had once been chosen to initiate a coinage at a dormant
o
mint would, for obvious reasons, be more likely to be
again selected for a similar purpose at another.
ALFPINE, of London, had been coining there in every
type, with one exception, between the years 1112 and 1121,
his last type being 263 (11191121), which is that of the
obverse die of this mule coin. He used both ALFPINE
and ELFPINE as his name. He now disappears from our
London coins, and the name ELFPINE appears at Glou-
cester, 1121-1123. The Gloucester mint again becomes
dormant from 1123 to 1129, during Earl Robert's visits to
Normandy, so Alfwine returns to London in the interim
and we find his name on the coins of that mint of type
265 (1126-1128), but now spelt ALFPINE. In 1129 we
find him once more at Gloucester, when the mint reopens
with type 262 (1129-1131), also now as ALFPINE, and
as such he continues to coin here on type 255 (1131-
1135). But during this issue four other moneyers, pro-
bably his apprentices now duly qualified, join him.
In 1133, on Earl Robert's return to Normandy, the
Gloucester mint again becomes dormant, so ALFPINE's
name appears on the remainder of the issue of 255 at
London. Finally, when the Gloucester coinage is
revived in Stephen's reign, we find him there once
more.
Not only, therefore, do the types never overlap, but the
moneyer who spelt his name with both A and E in
London up to 1121 spells it with E at Gloucester in
1121-1123, then he finally adopts the form ALFPINE at
London in 1126, and so it is similarly continued on the
Gloucester coins after that date.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. D D
202
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
The Gloucester mint was intermittently continued
until the reign of Henry III.
COINS.
^ELFPINE ON 6LOP :
EEX
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University. Fig.
0, page 72. As to this coin and moneyer
see above.
frALFPINE : ON SLOP :
W. S. Lincoln & Son.
*ALFPINE . . 6 . . P v
Watford find.
^ALFPINE : ON 6LOE
Watford find.
* ... PINE : ON : 6LOPE
British Museum.
.J.ALFPI1SE : ON : 6LO . E
British Museum.
frftENRIEVS R : 262
S R: 262
frhENRIEVS
255
255
.frhENRIEVS R 255
: ON : 6LOPEE
British Museum, Watford find. Engraved
Archceologia, xxi., 540.
I.RODBERT : ON : GLOE *I\ENRICVS
British Museum. Robert was coining here as
late as Henry II's reign.
. DBERT : ON : 6LOE :
Watford find.
. . EN . . EVS
255
255
225
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 203
frSAPINE : ON : 6LOPE *I\ENEIEVS 255
Watford find. Two specimens. Sawine also
coined here as late as Henry ITs reign.
The name appears on Saxon coins of
Gloucester.
: ON : GLOPEE : ^IxENEIEVS 255
J. G. Murdoch. PI. VII, No. 11. From the
Montagu 1896 Sale. A larger bust than
usual. The moneyer may be the ThVEEIL
or TVEEML coining on this type at Bristol.
. . . D ON : 6LO . 255
Watford find. The moneyer is probably the
WIBEET who coined here for Stephen, and
a " WIDAED " is mentioned in Domesday
as one of the King's tenants at Gloucester.
HhWIBEED : ON : 6LOP *I\ENEIEVS : 255
1 British Museum. From Mr. Rashleigh.
HADEW.
"HADEW" is given in Ruding's list of mints, and
various attributions from Hedingham to Haddon have
been attempted for it. As a matter of fact it is not the
name of a mint, but is that of a moneyer, which has
found its way into the wrong list. It is taken from the
engraving, Ruding, Sup. ii., 2, 10, the reverse legend of
which commences ^I\ADEW. The coin is the one also
illustrated, Hawkins 259, and is in the British Museum.
In support of this correction it may be pointed out that
HADEW (the Lombardic "fi" is not used by Ruding in
the letterpress of his work) is consequently omitted from
the list of moneyers, which, of course, would not otherwise
have occurred. The coin, however, is of one of the types
here assigned to the reign of Stephen.
204 NI'MISMATIC CHRONICLE.
HASTINGS (SUSSEX).
HASTINGA-CEASTER, H.ESTINGA, HESTINGA, HESTING-POKT ;
Domesday, HASTINGES ; Pipe Roll, HASTINGA.
Although popular etymology derives Hastings from the
name of the Danish chief Hastein, of Alfred's time, there
are vestiges in the earthworks of the Castle which indicate
a far more remote origin for the town. Athelstan would
never have constituted a Danish foundation of 893 into a
Saxon mint town of 928. Moreover, Hastings is men-
tioned in a charter of King Offa. Its historical importance,
however, certainly dates from the epoch of the Danish
wars, and a passage in the Saxon Chronicle, under the year
1011, infers that the Honour of Hastings had then already
a separate jurisdiction from that of the county, viz. :
" (The Danes had over-run) all Kent, and Sussex, and Hast-
ings, and Surrey, and Berkshire, and Hampshire, and much of
Wiltshire."
In 1049 the men of Hastings captured two ships of
Earl Sweyn's fleet, and in 1052 they joined Earl Godwin's
revolt.
1066. " Then came William, Duke of Normandy, into
Pevensey on the eve of St. Michaelmas ; and, soon
after they were on their way, they constructed a
castle at Hestmg-port." (Saxon Chronicle.)
" Duke William went afterwards (after the battle)
again to Hastings, and there awaited to see whether
the people would submit to him." (Saxon Chronicle.)
1068. Humphrey de Tilleul, "who had received the
custody of Hastings from the first day it (the Norman
castle) was built," relinquished William's cause in
England and was never able to recover his Honour
or domains. (Orderic.)
1080-1086. Robert d'Eu receives from the King great
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 205
revenues and Honours in England (Orderic). Amongst
these was the Honour of Hastings.
1086. Domesday. Except for an incidental reference
under "Bexelei" to the time when " King William
gave the castelry of Hastings to the Earl " (of Eu),
there is no mention of this place in the Survey.
1089. Robert d'Eu is engaged in the Normandy wars,
and mentioned as resident beyond the Seine. (Orderic.)
1090. Approximate date of his death. He is succeeded
by his son William d'Eu.
1094. William II, on his way to Normandy, stays at
Hastings during the dedication of Battle Abbey. Later
in the year, 20,000 men are mustered here "in readi-
ness for crossing the sea, but Ralph Passe-Flambard,
by the King's command, withheld the pay which had
been allotted for their maintenance at the rate of ten
pence for each man and ordered them to return to
their homes ; the money he remitted to the King."
(Florence.)
1096. At the Court at Salisbury, Geoffrey Bainard accused
William d'Eu, the King's relative, saying that he had
been concerned in the conspiracy against the King,
and for this cause he fought with him and overcame
him in single combat ; and after he (d'Eu) was van-
quished the King commanded that his eyes should be
put out." (Saxon Chronicle.) He left a son Henry
d'Eu.
1101. Henry I collects his forces at Hastings and Peven-
sey to oppose the landing of Duke Robert. (Hoveden ;
Saxon Chronicle.)
1101. Henry d'Eu witnesses the treaty between the King
and Robert, Earl of Flanders, at Douvres, Normandy.
(Foedera.)
1103. Similarly the second treaty.
1104. Welcomes the King to Normandy. (Orderic.)
1118. Revolts in Normandy in favour of William Clito,
son of Duke Robert, but is arrested there by Henry
and thrown into prison until he surrenders his for-
tresses in Normandy. (Orderic.)
1119. August. He, however, is the first named, after
the King's sons, amongst Henry's chief supporters at
the battle of Bremule. (Orderie.)
1127. Under this year, Orderic speaks of him as being
again amongst those in arms for William Clito, and
adds that a great number of these lords were made
206 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
prisoners and either disinherited or put to death.
The passage may, however, refer to the previous
revolt.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Henry d'Eu is evidently not in
England, as he is only three times formally referred to
throughout the Roll. William Fitz Robert de Hastings
(probably his uncle) fails to account for the Lesta-
gium (or ship customs) of Hastings and of Rye ; but
as no amount is stated his duty was probably to
merely return that the fleet was equipped. A defec-
tive entry shows that . . . was paying fees " for a
writ of right to the land of Boneface his relative."
To this mint was assigned one moneyer under Athelstan's
Law, but we have no coins bearing its name until the reign
of Ethelred II., when it seems to have had at least two
moneyers at a time. We have already discussed under
Dover the probability that the men of Hastings with
those of tbe other south-coast towns, which were subse-
quently to become the Cinque Ports, received their
privileges and mints by charters from Ethelred, in return
for supplying the King's fleet. Hastings' contribution,
similarly to that of Dover, was twenty- one ships fully
manned for fifteen days in a year. This condition of
affairs probably prevailed until the Conquest, and through-
out that period there is a plentiful issue of coinage here
bearing the name of every king. The number of moneyers
seems to have been increased to three.
William, immediately on his landing, ravaged the
district, and granted Hastings to Humphrey de Tilleul.
The mint now became a private one, and followed the
fortunes of its grantee. Hence, when in 1068 Humphrey
returned to Normandy, its issue, which had been continued
until then, was stopped. William was much incensed
against those luxurious knights who gave up the struggle
and returned home at that time, but it would not be for
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 207
several years that lie could be assured that their desertion
was to be permanent. Hence the expression in Orderic
that " neither they nor their heirs were ever able to re-
cover the honour and domains which they had already
gained and relinquished on this occasion." The Lordship
of Hastings, and consequently the mint also, lay dormant
therefore until about the year 1082, when William granted
the Honour to Robert D'Eu. The mint was then revived,
but the number of moneyers reduced to two. In 1089
Robert joined the Normandy wars, and the mint was again
closed until his son, William D'Eu, succeeded to Hastings.
In 1096, at the instigation of his brother-in-law, the Earl
of Chester (Orderic), D'Eu was accused of treason. He
appealed to the ordeal of battle, was defeated, and practi-
cally executed by torture. This caused a forfeiture of his
estate, and therefore the mint was in abeyance during the
remainder of the reign.
On Henry's accession the heir, Henry D'Eu, was at once
received into favour, no doubt because he was nephew to
the King's Councillor, Hugh, Earl of Chester. With the
exception of a visit to Treport and Douvres in 1101, he is
in England until 1103, and witnesses several charters, being
no doubt present with Henry at Hastings in 1101. Types
251 (1100-1102) and 254 (1102-1104) are issued from this
mint. He perhaps accompanies the Earl of Leicester and
Robert Fitz Hamon to Normandy in 1103, for, with them,
he "honourably receives" the King there in 1104; but
as he is not mentioned as being present at the battle of
Tinchebrai, he had probably returned home before that
date, 1106. It was now that he granted his charter to
Battle Abbey, for it was confirmed by Henry at Windsor
(1107). Hence types 253 (1104-1106) and 252 (1106-
1108) are struck at Hastings.
208 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
In 1107 he returns to Treport in Normandy (Trtport
Chartulary], and seems to have resided entirely in that
country, for between that date and 1116 his name appears
in several Normandy charters. Hence the English
chroniclers do not mention him, and his mint at Hastings
is dormant. This is supported by the evidence of Orderic
that in 1118 he is one of the Norman Earls plotting treason
in favour of William Clito. He is arrested there, but,
no doubt to regain the King's confidence, takes a fore-
most part in the battle of Bremule in August, 1119.
After this battle we are told that most of the barons
engaged in it accompanied Henry on his return to Eng-
land in November, 1120. The mint, therefore, immediately
reopens with type IY (1121-1123), and this is followed by
258 (1123-1125). The Barnstaple charter proves that
he must have returned to Normandy in 1124 or 1125,
for he was at Perriers in 1125. In 1127 it would appear,
from Orderic, that D'Eu is again in revolt in Normandy,
and he seems never to have returned to England during
the lifetime of King Henry. He was certainly not in
England in 1130, or we should hear more of him in the
Pipe Boll; or in 1131, when he would have attended
the great council of Northampton, which he failed to do.
On the other hand the charters to Fecamp and St.
Wandrille's, Rouen, prove him to have been in Normandy
in 1130 and 1131. From 1125, therefore, to the end of
the reign the mint is again dormant.
It is unfortunate that the entry in the Boll relating to
the land of Boneface is defective, for the name is so
unusual that it, in all probability, refers to the moneyer
whose name BONIFACE appears on type IV (1121-
1123). So uncommon is it, at least as a lay name, that it
does not occur upon any other coin or in any other early
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 209
Roll or charter. Boneface is dead, and a relative, prob-
ably also a moneyer, is claiming his land. The writ " pro
recto" as we have seen on page 115, discloses more than
a mere succession, and suggests the possibility that
Boneface had been one of the victims of the great Inquisi-
tion of 1125, and that his relative (cognatus), not being a
son, petitioned against the forfeiture of his property.
Hastings was the chief seat of the D'Eus in Stephen's
time, and its coinage was then plentiful, but the mint was
finally closed towards the end of that reign.
COINS.
.frBARLVIT ON MIS * HENRI BEX 254
British Museum. The moneyer's name is pro-
bably a form of BARTLEET (Bartelot). A
branch of this family held Stopham, Sussex,
temp. Richard II.
frBONIFXEE ON fiXS *riENRIEVS REX : IV
Montagu, 1896, 2 ; Marsham, 1888, 8 5s. ;
and Bergne, 1873, 1 10s., Sales. En-
graved Ruding, Sup. ii., 2, 6. A quatrefoil
over the right shoulder on the obverse and
a pellet in each angle of the reverse cross.
As to the moneyer, see above.
4.DRMAN ON HIEST *HNII REX N 251
British Museum. From the Cuff Sale, 1854,
2 10s. As DRMAN (for DEORMAN) simi-
larly occurs on the Steyning coins of Wil-
liam I and II, this is probably the same
moneyer.
*DVNINE : ON : fiA . . ^fiENRI RE 252
J. Verity. From the Allen Sale, 1898, and
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. K E
210 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
probably Sir Henry Ellis' coin in 1869. Tbe
Dunincs had coined here since the Con-
fessor's time.
*DVNI . E 0*N I\ASTI hE. RE 258
British Museum. PI. VI. No. 4. Engraved,
Ruding, Sup. ii., 2, 14, and Hawkins, 258.
Formerly in the collection of Mr. B. C.
Roberts. Obv. A quatrefoil (probably two
if the coin were distinct) before the sceptre.
Rev. iJ.DVNI[N]E O' in the outer space,
and JiN IxASTI in the inner, In the centre,
a small cross (almost obliterated by a frac-
ture). This moneyer was probably son of
the above.
.frGODRIE ON HSTIE * HENRI REX 253
British Museum. Probably from the Tyssen
Sale, 1802. A Godric coined here for
Rufus.
Specimen, Tyssen Sale, 1802 ..... 253
HEREFORD.
HEREFORDIA, HAREFORDIA ; Domesday, HEREFORD and HERE-
FORD-PORT ; Pipe Roll, HEREFORD.
The neighbourhood of Hereford is studded with the
vestiges of a prehistoric race, whose industry in the art of
war is evidenced by tier above tier of vallum and fosse
upon nearly every natural stronghold. But the origin of
the City itself is shrouded in obscurity. If, however, it
had been existent during the Roman occupation, it is
unlikely that the legions would have chosen Kenchester,
some three miles away, for the site of their great camp
in this district in preference to a British city already
A JTUMISMAT1C HISTORY OP THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 211
established. Therefore, the tradition of its early Saxon
foundation seems warranted by theory at least. The Here-
ford district fell into the hands of the Saxons about the
close of the sixth century, and a hundred years later the
See was established. Then for the first time the city
itself seems to be mentioned in our chronicles. In 918
the men of Hereford and of Gloucester defeated the
Danish army in the West, and so established their prowess
that the city of Hereford was one of the few in England
which escaped the general devastation of those wars. In
1055, however, the city was burnt, and the great Saxon
minster plundered by the mixed army of Irish, Welsh,
and Mercians under Algar, the outlawed earl.
1067. " Child Edric (the Wild) and the Welsh were dis-
turbed this year and fought with the men of the
castle at Hereford, to whom they did much harm."
(Saxon Chronicle.) William grants the " County of
Hereford " to his cousin William Fitz Osborn, giving
to him and to Walter de Lacy the charge of defending
the Marches. (Orderic.)
1071. King William sends Fitz Osborn to Normandy, of
which country he was High Steward, to assist Queen
Matilda in the defence of the duchy (Orderic), where
he was slain on the 20th of February.
He was succeeded in his earldom of Hereford and
his other possessions in England by his second son,
Roger de Breteuil, " for King William thus distributed
his inheritance amongst his sons." (Orderic.)
1075. Earl Roger fortifies Hereford and joins the rebel-
lion of Ralph de Guader and Waltheof. He is sum-
moned to the King's court, convicted of treason, and
"detained in captivity, even after the King's death,
until his own death released him from it. His two
sons, Reynold and Koger, young men of great pro-
mise, who are now (probably about the year 1130) in
the service of King Henry and in great distress, are
waiting for the exercise of his clemency, which appears
to them sufficiently tardy." (Orderic.)
1086. Domesday notes. In the Confessor's time the
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
resident garrison of Hereford numbered 104 within and
without the wall, and had their customs as set out in
detail. These customs provided for the defence of the
city and for forays against the Welsh. " There were
seven moneyers here. One of these was the moneyer
of the Bishop. When the money was renewed (i.e.,
the type changed) each of them gave eighteen shillings
for receiving the dies, and within one month after-
wards each of them gave to the King twenty shillings,
and likewise the Bishop had twenty shillings from
his moneyer. When the King came into the city the
moneyers made as many pennies for him as he chose,
but, of course, of the King's silver, and these seven
had their sac and soc, In case of the death of a
moneyer of the King, the King had a duty of twenty
shillings ; but if the moneyer died intestate, the King
had all his effects. If the Sheriff went with a force
into Wales, these men went with him. If any sum-
moned did not go he forfeited forty shillings to the
King."
Now the King has the city of Hereford in lordship.
This city returns to the King sixty pounds " by
number in standard pennies (" candidis denariis 1 ').
It is mentioned that the burgesses retain the above-
mentioned customs with certain modifications in
favour of Norman citizens.
1100. Gerard, Bishop of Hereford, raised to the Arch-
bishopric of York.
1102. A charter executed by King Henry "at Hereford,"
and witnessed by Urso d Abetot of Worcester, shows
the King to have been here about this date, as Urso
died early in the reign.
Roger, the King's Larderer, appointed Bishop, but
dies before consecration. Raynelm, the Queen's
Chancellor, appointed, but refuses investiture pending
settlement of the King's dispute with Anselm.
1107. Is duly elected and consecrated.
1115. Death of Bishop Raynelm. Geoffrey, the King's
Chaplain, succeeds. (Florence.) It is now that the
Norman cathedral is consecrated.
1119. February 3rd. Death of Bishop Geoffrey. Richard,
the Vice-Chancellor, succeeds, 112U. (Monasticon.)
1127. Bishop Richard dies at Ledbury.
1130. Pipe Eoll notes. The See at this time is vacant,
and therefore we find Geoffrey, the King's Chancellor,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE EEIGN OF HENRY I. 213
returning 4 12s. 6d. [arrears of] the previous year's
Jirmaofthe diocese. As he also accounts for 8 17s. 2d.
[arrears of] the previous year, and 104 9s. 6d.
for the current year's firma of the manors of which he
had the custody, these no doubt include Hereford.
He has evidently been only recently appointed Chan-
cellor, for he owes 3,006 18s. 4d. for the seal an
enormous sum in those days. Under Pembroke, we
find the entry, " Gillopatric, the moneyer, accounts
for 4, for forfeit of the previous year's money" (p
forisf vetis monete. Veteris is used throughout the
Roll for the previous year).
1131. Robert de Betun appointed Bishop.
Although not mentioned in Athelstan's Law, the name
of this mint first appears upon his coins, but only one
moneyer seems to have then been in office. As his name
(HVNLAF) occurs on Eadmund's coins, no doubt coinage
was continued here, for when types were issued on the
older principle of bearing a moneyer's name alone, it is
almost impossible to locate the mint. This, as previously
explained, must be understood to apply to all mints
existing prior to the reign of Ethelred II. Hereford again
appears on the coins of Eadwig, and from Ethelred II to
Harold II coinage here is continued. The number of
moneyers is gradually increased until under Canute in
corroboration of Domesday we find the names of seven
upon the coins of this mint. We can even distinguish
that of the Bishop, for on the dies of one of them appears
as a difference an annulet or ring the symbol of Episco-
palian investiture (see Peterborough and York).
Domesday gives us some interesting details of the
monetary system prevailing here in the days of the
Confessor. These, except for the special provision that
the moneyers should accompany the Sheriff in his expe-
ditions against the Welsh, may be taken as applying
generally to the customs of all the Royal mints at that
214 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
period subject, of course, to variations in the amounts of
the fees according to the value of the output of the local
mint. They are quite clear and concise, and comment is
unnecessary, save upon this. The Bishop, it will be
observed, received the fees from his moneyer, and even
on that moneyer's death the King had no relief, for the
Bishop was a grantee ; so in all the grantees' mints the
fees of the moneyers were received by the bishops or
lords, and the King had nothing whatever to do with
them ; which is exactly the theory of this work.
Upon the Conquest all this is changed. William
grants the Earldom of Hereford, and therefore the mint
with it, to his relative William Fitz Osborn. Coinage
therefore becomes intermittent. The number of moneyers
is reduced to three, and, so far as we can infer, the Bishop's
privilege, not being one established by the Law of Athel-
stan, but only held at the King's will, had not been con-
firmed to him, and would thus lapse into the general
grant to the earl. Fitz Osborn dies in 1071, and is
succeeded by his son, Roger de Breteuil. He in 1075
is disinherited for rebellion, and with him the house of
Fitz Osborn disappears from the history of Hereford.
If the mint of Hereford had been created by charter to
William Fitz Osborn as grantee it would now lapse, but
this was not the case. It was always a royal mint until
William I granted the earldom, together with all his rights
and privileges therein, to Fitz Osborn. In other words,
the King assigned his existing privileges to the Earl, and
therefore, on the escheat for treason, the earl's enjoyment
only of the privileges was forfeited, not the privileges
themselves.
It is doubtful, however, whether William at first in-
tended this forfeiture to be permanent, for he hesitated a
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HEXKY I. 215
long time as to the punishment of Waltheof in the same
conspiracy. Earl Roger, on being summoned to the
court for trial, had the courage to attend, and Orderic im-
plies that William would have subsequently pardoned
him, for he adds that even in prison " he caused the
King great annoyance, and rendered him implacable by
his obstinate contumacy." Hence for some years the
mint lies dormant, waiting events.
In the Confessor's time the city had returned only 18,
but in 1086 it is in lordship to the King at a firma of
60, so it is probable that when William in 1081 " led
his army into Wales " (Sax. Chron.), he finally re-entered
into possession of the earldom and farmed the city,
together with the mint, to the burgesses at the increased
firma of 60. This would account for the three moneyers
of the earl's time, instead of the seven of the Confessor's,
appearing upon our Hereford coins from about the year
1082 to the death of William II.
Earl Roger's two sons seem, from Orderic's description
of them, to have been born subsequently to their father's
fall. They are brought up at Henry's court, and are
evidently in the full expectation of succeeding to the
earldom. Henry on his accession may have intended to
reinstate them and therefore never confirmed the charter
to the burgesses. But it is more likely that the citizens
were implicated in the neighbouring rebellion at Shrews-
bury under Robert de Beleme as their feudal Lord of
the Marches. A charter of Henry I. granted at Here-
ford, and witnessed by Urso d'Abetot, who died early in
the reign, suggests that after quelling the revolt at
Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth in 1102, the King marched
his army to Hereford, perhaps to restore order in that city
also. It is at least significant that the two ancient and
216 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
prolific mints of Hereford and Shrewsbury are now
simultaneously discontinued and remain dormant for many
years.
In 1127 Richard, Bishop of Hereford, dies, and the
Pipe Roll tells us that in 1129-30 Geoffrey the Chancellor
is the collector not only of the revenues of the diocese,
but also " of the manors which he has in custody." This
probably means the forfeited earldom, as otherwise the
Roll must be imperfect here, for there is no other return
for Hereford. He has recently been appointed, and thus
it is only natural that he should now revive the King's
coinage in the city, and to do so he introduces that
general reviver of the art of coinage, the itinerant moneyer
EDEIEVS of Bristol and Bedford (see under those mints).
Types 262 (1128-1131) and 255 (1131-1135) therefore
now appear.
To explain the next note from the Roll it is necessary
to again revert to Domesday. The custom that the
moneyers of Hereford should accompany their Sheriff in
his expeditions into Wales shows that they held their
office by special military service. This, coupled with
their sac and soc, shows them to have been freemen of
considerable status. Although their number in 1128 had
been reduced to three, they would still be liable to this
service, and to the fine of 2 each in default. On type
255 and in Stephen's reign, we have the names of the
three moneyers coining here, but on type 262, which in-
cludes the year 1128, we have that of only one. The
entry therefore in the 1129-30 Roll that Gillopatric
the moneyer accounts for 4 for forfeit of the previous
year's money (? monetary service) suggests that in 1127
or 1128 there had been an expedition into Wales which
two of the hereditary moneyers had failed to attend.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 217
This is the more probable because a charter to Malvern
Priory proves that the King passed through Hereford in
1127. These absentees would be fined 2 each, so Gillo-
patric pays 4 for himself and the other moneyer, who
was, perhaps, a near relative in the same Roll, Algar and
Spraoheling, money ers of London, are fined jointly. Or it
may be that the contracted passage " Gillopatric monetari
redd copot" stands for "Gillo 7 Patric monetarii," &c.,
thus giving us the names of the two missing moneyers,
viz., "William and Patric. This accounts for the absence
of the name Gillopatric in either form upon any of our
coins, and for the fact that only the third moneyer's name,
Edricus, appears on the current type, 262, for both the
defaulters would naturally lose their office. Perhaps, too,
this expedition into Pembrokeshire was the indirect cause
of the deposit of the Milford Haven hoard.
During the following reign the earldom was again
revived by charter in favour of Milo de Gloucester, from
which date, 1141 (Round), coinage here once more becomes
of an intermittent character, and so continues until the
mint is finally closed in the time of Henry III.
COINS.
.frEINEI : ON : hEEE * hENEIEVS E 25i
Engraved Withy and Ryall, ii., 26. The
moneyer's name is probably misread for
*DEEIEVS : ON : riE . . .frhENEIEVS E : 261'
Watford find. The moneyer's name is EDEI-
EVS as to whom, see above bat the E
and D have been transposed. Compare
DED6AE for OED6AE, of London.
*EDEIEVS ON hEEE ^.riENEIEVS : 25
Watford find.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. *' F
218 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
4.EDRIEVS ON IiERE
Simpson Rostron Sale, 1892 ; Martin, 1859 ;
and probably Tyssen, 1802.
*EDRIEVS : ON : IxERE *I\ENRIEVS : 255
J. G. Murdoch. PI. VII. No. 8. From
Marsham, 1888, and Richardson, 1895, 18
5s., Sales. Probably the above specimen.
frEDRlE : ON : IxERE .frhENRIEVS 255
Victoria Institute, Worcester. Lent by the
Corporation for this note.
frl-DRIE . . ON fiERE 255
Battle find, and Marsham, 1888, Sale.
.frEDPDE : ON IxEREF : *hENRIEVS - 255
British Museum. From the Durrant, 1847,
Sale.
*ED . . ]SE : ON : I\ER .frhENRIEVS 255
British Museum.
* hERIEVS : ON : hE. See ^DERIEVS.
fr[P]^RIE : ON : hEREF : 4-fiENRIEVS 255
Watford find. Two specimens. A PIERIE,
probably the same moneyer, coined here for
Stephen.
* . .ERIE : ON : TiEREF ^hENRIEVS 255
(Reference missing.)
Specimens. Brown Sale, 1869 . . . .255
Tyssen Sale, 1802 . . . .255
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 219
HUNTINGDON.
HUNTANDUN, HUNTANDENE, HuNTANTUN, HuNTUNDONAJ Domesday,
HUNTEDUN ; Pipe Roll, HUNTEDONA ; Charters, HUNTEDON, &c.
As in the cases of Salisbury, Hereford, and Derby, Hunting-
don does not now occupy the exact site of its Roman founda-
tion, which was at Godmanchester, upon the opposite bank
of the river. From a reference to this town as Hunting-
don-Port in the A. 8. Chronicle's transcript of the foun-
dation charter of Peterborough Monastery, A.D. 657, its
Roman origin seems assured, for its position is clearly that
of one of the portcB or stations on the Ermine Street. The
modern Huntingdon, however, was already a fortified
burg in 921, for the same authority tells us, under that
year, that the Danes retired thence before Edward the
Elder, who rebuilt the place and manned it. In the
following century, Huntingdon and Northampton fell
under the sway of Siward the Strong, Earl of Northumbria.
After his death in 1055, the two former earldoms were
separated from the Northern fief and ultimately descended
in the direct line to Waltheof, who held them at the date
of the Conquest.
Writing about the year 1134, Henry of Huntingdon
describes his own town as follows :
" The river Ouse washes three fortified places, which are the
chief towns of the counties of Bedford, Buckingham, and Hun-
tingdon. Huntingdon, that is, 'the hill of hunters,' stands on
the site of Godmanchester, once a famous city, but now only a
pleasant village on both sides of the river. It is remarkable
for the two castles before mentioned [the Saxon or Danish burk,
and the Norman keep], and for its sunny aspect, as well as for
its beauty, besides its coutiguity to the Fens, and the abundance
of wild fowl and animals of the chase." (Forester.)
220 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1067. William I returned to Normandy in Lent and took
with him, no doubt as hostages, "Child Edgar, and
Edwin the Earl and Morcar the Earl, and Waltheof,
the Earl, and many other good men of England."
(Sax. Chron.)
1068. On his return the King erected a castle at Hunt-
ingdon, and garrisoned it. (Orderic.)
1069. Waltheof revolts in the North, and is one of the
leaders of the Danes against the garrison of York.
(Orderic.)
1070. He is reconciled to the Conqueror, who gives him
his niece Judith in marriage, and " confers " [? con-
firms] the earldom of Northampton [" and Hunting-
don," in a second passage] on Waltheof, son of Earl
Siward, the most powerful of the English nobility."
(Orderic.)
1075. Waltheof is implicated in Ralph de Guarder's
rebellion, and pleads for pardon before the King in
Normandy. (Sax. Chron.)
1076. May 31st. On the King's return he is convicted
" upon the testimony of his wife Judith," and be-
headed at Winchester. (Orderic.)
1086. Domesday notes. In the Burg of Huntingdon
there were in the Confessor's time, and are now
(altogether), 256 burgesses paying customs and taxes
to the King, and 112 houses laid waste. Of these
most seem to have been demolished before the time
of the Confessor, and therefore, probably, by the
Danes in 921. The Bishop of Lincoln formerly had a
residence, and there were twenty other houses on the
site of the castle, but now demolished. The Countess
Judith has eighteen homesteads, with sac and soc and
tol and team, and a manor-house (mansionem cum
domo) free from customs, which formerly Earl Siward
had. The burg was formerly rated for a fourth part
of the Hurstingstone hundred, but not " since King
William laid the tax of the mint on the burg."
10 was paid in the Confessor's time for land tax, of
which the Earl had the third part, and as Jirma,
20 to the King, and 10, either more or less as he
was able to levy it, to the Earl. The mill paid 40s.
to the King and 20s. to the Earl. " In this burg
there were four moneyers paying 40s. between the
King and Earl, but now they are not." In the tim
of the Confessor and now the burg paid 30.
\
Vwn Chron< S&rlV fa
TY P E I
(HAWKINS 25 1 )
l/i
TYPE II
HAWKINS 25
TYPE III
(HAWKINS 253)
TYPE IV
(HAW KINS 252
TYPE V
(HAWK INS 256)
COINS. OF HENRY I.
Mun. CAw.Sct: IV. M. I Pi IV
TYPE VII
^HAWKINS 267)
TYPE VIII
(HAWKINS 266
TYPE IX
(HAWKINS 264)
COINS OF HENRY I.
Nim Chron Ser.W VolJ.Pl. V.
T Y p E x
(HAWKINS 263)
TYPE XI
HAWKINS IV)
COINS OF HENRY I.
ChronSerlVVolLPL
TYPE XII
(HAWKINS 258)
TYPE XIII
'HAWKINS 265)
COINS OF HENRY I
Mint,. C
Vff
TYPE XIII
(HAWKINS 265]
(Cont4)
TYPE XIV
(HAWKINS 262)
TYPE XV
(HAWKINS 255)
COINS OF HENRY I
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 221
1086-7. " Waltheof had three daughters by his wife, the
daughter of the Countess of Albernarle. . . . Simon
de St. Liz married the eldest, and received the County
of Huntingdon with her ; and by her he had one son,
called Simon." (Robert de Monte.) The date is
deduced from the fact that Earl Simon was evidently
not married when Domesday was compiled, and yet the
Register of St. Andrew's Priory at Northampton tells
us that William I gave Maud in marriage to Simon de
St. Liz, together with the whole Honour of Hunting-
don. Orderic adds that " he held the two Counties
of Northampton and Huntingdon as Earl in her right."
1100. Earl Simon witnesses Henry's Coronation charter.
1101. Witnesses the Bath, Norwich, and other charters
in England.
1102-3. Joins the Crusades and is absent for about five
years.
1108-9. Returns and witnesses the Lenton and Ely
charters at Nottingham.
1109. Visits Normandy and witnesses the Longueville
charter at Rouen.
1109. His death, late in the year.
1113. The King gives Maud, the Earl's widow, in mar-
riage to David, Earl of Cumbria (the south-western
division of Scotland), who, in her right, succeeds Earl
Simon as Earl of Northampton and Huntingdon.
From the date of the marriage of his sister to King
Henry, Prince David had resided at the English
Court, but, after the death of his brother Edgar,
King of Scotland, in 1107, he returned to that country
as heir presumptive to the Crown, and, from the date
of his own marriage, at least, seems to have resided
there.
1121. January. Attends Henry's marriage at Windsor.
Witnesses a charter to Westminster on that occasion
as " Earl David." (Round.)
1124. April 24. Succeeds to the Crown of Scotland.
(Melrose.)
1127. January 1. At London, swears fealty to the Em-
press Matilda as successor to the English throne.
(Melrose.)
1129-30. "King David was ably applying himself to a
cause in King Henry's Court, and carefully examining
a charge of treason of which, they say, Geoffrey de
Clinton had been guilty." (Orderic.)
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. <* G
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Pipe Roll notes. Geoffrey de Clinton is the King's
Justiciary in Huntingdonshire, and so King David's
inquiry into " the false " charge of treason would be
in his comital qualification as Earl of the county.
The various expenses of escorting the King of Scot-
laud to the English court and of his return to Scotland
are entered under several counties, showing that he
returned before September 29th, 1130. The Burg of
Huntingdon pays 8 in auxilium, and the cloth
weavers 40s. for their guild.
1131. Death of Maud, Waltheof's daughter and Queen of
Scotland.
The mint of Huntingdon was doubtless established by
Eadwig, as his coins are the earliest as yet noticed, which
bear its name. This was within some five-and-thirty
years after Edward the Elder had " rebuilt the place and
manned it." Coinage was continued under all Eadwig's
Saxon successors and in the time of the Confessor there
were three moneyers in office.
The record in Domesday, " in this burg there were
three moneyers paying 40s. between the King and Earl,
but now they are not," shows that the Saxon Earl formerly
had the tertius denarius of the mint. He held the mint
therefore by the same tenure as he held the burg, and both
were under his direct control.
Immediately after the Conquest Waltheof seems to
have submitted to William, as, in the Lent following, he
accompanied the King to Normandy. In 1069 he joined
the Northern insurrection and in person kept the gate at
York against the Norman attack. It speaks well for
King William's generosity that, in the following year, he
should not only restore Waltheof to favour, but also give
him his niece Judith in marriage and regrant to him his
former earldom of Huntingdon and Northampton. But
in 1075 the Earl was implicated in the East Anglian
JL NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 223
conspiracy, and after considerable hesitation on the King's
part was executed at Winchester, in May, 1076. The
joint earldom thus became extinct because of the for-
feiture for treason, but, in any case, it would have been
dormant, as Waltheof only left issue three daughters.
The mint therefore also fell into abeyance ; but it was a
quasi Royal mint, being as to two-thirds of its revenue
the prerogative of the Crown, and so, as in the exactly
parallel instance of Hereford, it was presently revived.
There is no clearer evidence in support of the theory
running through this volume than the case of Huntingdon.
The earldom became extinct in 1076 ; Domesday tells us
that in 1086 the three money ers who used to pay 40s.
between the King and Earl " are not," and yet at that very
time we have the evidence of the Huntingdon coins to
show us that the mint was in full operation. The expla-
nation is contained in the previous sentence, " the burg
was formerly rated for a fourth part of the Hurstingstone
hundred, but not since King William laid the tax of the
mint on the burg." Therefore, as in the case of Dor-
chester, the King had farmed the mint to the burgesses
in the firma of their burg. But in this instance we have
direct evidence that he had done so, whereas at Dorchester
and several other places we can only infer it. Surely this
incidental reference to the tax of the Huntingdon mint
should, once for all, clench the fact that only those
moneyers are mentioned in Domesday from whom the
King drew, in whole or in part, a direct revenue hence
the apparent contradiction that although the mint is
referred to as being in the hands of the burgesses, the
moneyers, as royal moneyers, no longer exist.
In 1086 Maud, the eldest daughter of Waltheof, would
probably be about fifteen years of age and, in accordance
224 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
with the Norman custom of early marriages, the Con-
queror bestowed her upon one of his Senlac followers,
Simon de St. Liz, " together with the whole Honour of
Huntingdon." As in the later, but very similar instance,
of Gloucester, this must have been followed by a grant of
the earldom of Northampton and Huntingdon, for as early
as in 1090 St. Liz witnesses the Bath charter as
" Symon Comes." Although of two counties the earldom
seems to have been a single creation and the title of
Northampton to have been then usually preferred. This
revival of the earldom would revoke the transfer of the
mint to the burg and restore it to its former status under
the earl. No doubt its firma also was again similarly
divided between the King and Earl, and its output would
thus, once more, become intermittent according to Earl
Simon's presence in, or absence from, England.
In 1100 Earl Simon was in England and witnessed
Henry's Coronation charter, so there is no reason why
type 251 should not be in evidence from this mint, but as
yet it seems to be missing. He was at Windsor in
September 1101, as appears by the Norwich and Bath
charters, and remained in England until some date in
1102 or 1103, when he joined the Crusades. Hence type
254 (1102-1104) now appears of the Huntingdon mint.
He remained abroad until late in 1107 or early in 1108,
when he returned and granted the foundation charter of
St. Andrew's Priory, Northampton, and witnessed that of
Lenton Priory. In the following year his name appears
in the Ely charter granted at Henry's council at Notting-
ham, October 16th, 1109 ; but immediately afterwards he
must have crossed the Channel, for he died at Charite*-
sur-Loire in the same year. Thus he was only in
England for a few months and consequently we appear
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 22->
to have no coins issued by his authority upon this occa-
sion. He left one son, Simon II, then a minor.
From 1109 to 1113 the earldom was in abeyance and
therefore the mint could not be in operation. In or about
the latter year the King gave Maud of Huntingdon,
Earl Simon's widow, to David, Prince of Cumbria. From
the date of the marriage of his sister Matilda to King
Henry in 1100, David had been resident at the English
Court, but by the will of his elder brother Edgar, King of
Scotland, he succeeded in 1107 to the south-western
division of that kingdom, which he ruled almost as an in-
dependent Prince. Oddly enough the last English charter
which he seems to have witnessed while still domiciled
in England, is that of St. Andrew's Priory, Northampton,
granted by his future wife and Earl Simon in 1107-08.
He then returned to Scotland, and at the date of his
.marriage in 1113 was resident near Glasgow. Orderic
tells us that upon his marriage he possessed the two
Counties of Northampton and Huntingdon in right of
his wife, and from that date to the time of his accession to
the Scottish crown we almost invariably find him described
in charters as " Earl David." The question is, was he
created Earl of Northampton and Huntingdon ? At this
time Maud's son by her first marriage must have been
approaching manhood, and to grant David the earldom
would have been to divert it entirely from him. It is
therefore more probable that it was now divided, and that
Henry created David Earl of Huntingdon only, but gave
him the custody of the earldom of Northampton in right
of his wife. This is supported by the facts that one of
Henry's charters is addressed to him as " Earl of Hun-
tingdon," and in later times, although always the subject
of a family feud, the descendants of David claimed the
226 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
earldom of Huntingdon, whilst that of Northampton
devolved upon the family of St. Liz. From the time of
his marriage to the year 1120 David remained in Scotland,
where, amongst others, his name appears in the Selkirk
charter of 1113, the Glasgow episcopal appointment of
1115, the Jedburgh charter of 1118, and the Glasgow
inquisition edict of 1120. Hence coinage at Huntingdon
was impossible. In January, 1121, we find his name as
a witness to two charters to Westminster granted at
Windsor. As Mr. Round points out, this was upon the
occasion of his brother-in-law King Henry's second
marriage, which it is suggested, he came over specially to
attend and stayed but a few days in England. If a
charter of Hugh de la Yal to Pontefract Prior}' may be
relied upon although its witnesses are out of the
customary order he paid another visit to Henry in
December, 1122, but only met him at York. In April,,
1124, he succeeded his brother Alexander on the throne
of Scotland, and remained in that country until December,
1126, when he again made a special journey to the
English Court, this time to pay homage for his English
possessions upon his accession and to swear fealty at
London to the Empress Matilda, as heiress presumptive to
the Crown. As, up to this date, we only know of these
three visits, of the first and second by the appearance of
his name on the charters, and of the third by the record
of his fealty, we may assume that they were merely fleeting
appearances, for had so important a personage as a Prince,
and later a King of Scotland, remained any length of time
in this country, his presence would have been recorded over
and over again; as, indeed, it was, very soon afterwards. It
would have been impracticable therefore for David to have
obtained the necessary dies and instituted a coinage at
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 227
Huntingdon upon any one of these occasions. But in
1129-30 David came over to England and spent a whole
year here. It was as Earl of Huntingdon that he held
the enquiry touching the alleged treason of Geoffrey de
Clinton, the King's justiciary for that county, and his
object in remaining so long a time was no doubt the
general administration of his earldom. Now, and now
only, during the latter half of the reign of Henry I are
the privileges of the mint exercised at Huntingdon, and
type 262 (1128-1131) is in evidence.
King David did not again set foot in England during
this reign, and so the mint remained closed. It was re-
opened in Stephen's time, probably by David's son Prince
Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, and ceased to exist coinci-
dently with his death.
COINS.
frDEELIG : ON : fxVNTFO : . . NEIEVS EE 262
Watford find.
ADEEMS : ON I\V . . F . : *riENEIEVS E 262
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton.
frSEFPINE ON HVT .frHENEI EIEX 254
Hun terian Museum, Glasgow University. PL II,
No. 9. Engraved, Ruding, Sup. i., 4. A
pellet instead of the annulet in the centre of
the reverse cross. This moneyer Sefwine
had coined here in the previous reign.
On page 96 this mint is given under type 255
instead of under 254.
228 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
IPSWICH (SUFFOLK).
GIPESWIC, GYPESWICH ; Domesday, GEPESWIZ ; Pipe Roll,
GEPESWIC.
Excavations at Ipswich have disclosed Roman remains,
but it is remarkable that a town, which in the eleventh
century contained one of the largest populations in
England, should figure so rarely in our early records.
Its name, however, appears in the will of Theodred,
Bishop of Elmham, circa 960, and contemporaneously
upon our coins of Edgar.
The Saxon Chronicle tells us that, in 991, Ipswich was
ravaged, and in 1010 the Danes again invaded the district.
1069. The Danes disembark at Ipswich and commence
raiding the neighbourhood, but the inhabitants slay
thirty of them and put the rest to flight.
1075. The conspiracy and fall of Ralph de Gruader, Earl
of East Anglia (see pages 211, 215, 220, 212, 326-27).
He is driven into exile, and subsequently dies in the
first Crusade. His estates, which included Ipswich,
were confiscated.
1082. Ipswich seems now to have been granted to Roger
Bigod as the King's Castellan.
1086. Domesday notes. Roger Bigod has the custody of
half the Hundred and of the burg of Ipswich " in
wanu Regis." In the time of the Confessor, Queen
Edith held two parts of it, and Earl Gurth (Harold's
brother) the third part. There were then 588 bur-
gesses in the burg paying customs to the King. They
bad 40 acres of land; and paid &Jirma of <15 and six
sextaries of honey, and also 4s. in customs of honey
and 8s. to the prebendaries. The churches of the
Holy Trinity, St. Mary, St. Augustine, St. Michael,
St. Botolph, and St. Lawrence are mentioned.
Now there are 110 burgesses who pay customs, and
100 impoverished burge>ses who are only able to pay
one penny as tax to the King for their civil rights. 828
houses are waste in the burg, which in the time of
King Edward paid scot to the King's taxes. Roger
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 229
the Sheriff let the whole at &firma of 40 [payable]
at the feast of St. Michael. Afterwards he was not
able to maintain the assessment, and from this he
allowed 60s. ; now it returns 37.
"And the moneyers paid in the time of King Edward
4 per annum for the mint. Now they ought to pay
20, but in the course of four years they have only paid
27. And the Earl always has the third part."
In a later passage it is mentioned that Earl Alan of
Brittany held the other half of the Hundred of Ips-
wich and the tertius denarius of the burg, in all
but 15.
1100. Roger Bigod witnesses Henry I's Coronation
charter (Wendover), and is appointed upon his
Council. (Orderic.)
1100-7. Roger Bigod witnesses many English charters.
1107. September 15th. Dies, and is buried in the Priory
at Thetford. (Orderic.) He left two sons, William
and Hugh.
1113. William Bigod, in Normandy, witnesses the charter
of St. Evroul. (Orderic.)
1119. Probable date of William Bigod's confirmation
charter to Thetford Priory and of his attestation of
the Romsey charter.
1120. November 25th. William Bigod perishes in the
"White Ship."
1122. December. Hugh Bigod witnesses Hugh de la
Val's charter to Pontefract.
1123. Witnesses the Plympton charter at Henry's Court.
1125. In Normandy, witnesses the Foundation charter
of Reading Abbey.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The burg pays 7 auxilium.
William Bigod, at the time of his death, owed 100 on
account of his fees, which his brother [Hugh] will pay
for him, if the King should wish. Hugh Bigod receives
10 from the Sheriff's receipts for the County of Nor-
folk and 10 similarly from that of Suffolk.
1131. Hugh Bigod attends the September Council at
Northampton and witnesses the charters to Salisbury
and Dover.
1185. Is present at Henry's death at Lyons. (Ealph d*
Diceto.)
It was but natural that King Edgar, who had been
brought up from his boyhood in East Anglia, should
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. H H
230 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
encourage and benefit the towns of the eastern division
of England. Hence the mints of Ipswich, Norwich,
Thetford, St. Edmundsbury, and Peterborough (Stamford),
owe their origin to him. The mint of Lincoln was revived
by him, and that of Huntingdon established, whilst he
reigned as sub-king of East Anglia in the lifetime of
his brother E ad wig.
Thus Ipswich was originally a royal mint and so
remained throughout the succeeding Saxon reigns. Its
output was prolific and all of these reigns are repre-
sented upon its coinage. Our Ipswich coins of the
Confessor suggest that there were then four moneyers, and
therefore the annual fees of 4, mentioned in Domesday,
represented the usual 1 per head. Although still a
royal mint, it would be under the immediate jurisdiction
of Earl Gurth as grantee of the tertius denarius of the
burg.
The Conquest fell heavily upon Ipswich. Its firma
was practically doubled and the annual fees of its mint
were raised from 4 to 20. William created Ralph de
Guader Earl of East Anglia, and as such he would receive
the tertius denarius of the burg and mint. But in 1075,
on the occasion of his marriage with the sister of Roger,
Earl of Hereford,
41 There was that bride ale,
The source of man's bale,"
as the Saxon Chronicle quaintly explains a con-
spiracy, so purposeless and foolhardy as to be otherwise
incredible, in which the two Earls and Waltheof plotted
the overthrow of King William.
The immediate result of this conspiracy if, indeed, it
was anything more than a few futile boasts at the feast
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 231
welcomed with avidity as an excuse for the extinction of
Waltheof was an expedition of William's forces into
Norfolk and Suffolk, and the outlawry of the Earl.
Then, no doubt, it was that the 328 houses referred to
in Domesday were laid "' waste " and the town so im-
poverished that when, eleven years later, the mint ought
to have contributed a rent amounting to 80 in the
preceding four years, it had only paid 27.
The Earldom of East Anglia was confiscated and its
territory divided by King William amongst his adherents.
Roger Bigod seems to have received the lion's share, for
in Suffolk alone he was granted 117 lordships or manors.
The tertius denarius of the burg of Ipswich, together
with that of the two adjoining Hundreds, was given to
Alan, Earl of Brittany, but Roger Bigod had the custody
of the burg in manu Regis. This position is singular, and
must be explained by the necessarily " absentee " charac-
ter of the lordship of an Earl or Duke as he was some-
times called of Brittany. Roger, as King's castellan,
held the town, but Earl Alan received its tertius denarius
and that of the mint also. The singularity rests in the
fact that the Bigod was castellan for the King and not,
as, for instance, in the case of Milo of Gloucester in later
times, for the Earl. The effect of this was that the town
for all practical purposes was the lordship of Roger Bigod
and he was solely responsible to the King for its custody.
The mint, therefore, must have been under his immediate
jurisdiction, and to this extent Ipswich was an exception
to the general rule that the privileges of a mint followed
its tertius denarius, for the claims of Earl Alan seem to
have been limited to a monetary payment, whereas those
of Roger Bigod comprised the whole privileges of a terri-
torial lord. Mr. Round, in Geoffrey de Mandeville, points
232 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
out that Conan, the then Earl of Brittany, received
9 10s. as the tertius denarius of the county at the date
of the 1156 Pipe Roll, and that upon his death, in 1171,
Robert de Torigny records that Henry II succeeded to
iota Britannia et comitatus de Gippewis. It will, however,
be noticed that the 15 has been reduced to 9 10s., and
the difference of 5 10s. may, not improbably, repre-
sent the nominal third penny from the mint. In the
meantime Hugh Bigod had been created Earl of Norfolk
and Suffolk by King Stephen, and so, if this outstanding
third penny of the Earldom of Ipswich had then been
anything more than a mere rent charge, we should have
had two Earls qualified from the same fees, or, as was not
the case, an exception of the third penny of the pleas of
" the County of Ipswich " from the grant to Earl Bigod.
Other observations are that there is no such payment
in the 1130 Roll, and its revival in 1156 is in the year
previous to that in which Henry II compelled Earl Bigod
to surrender his castles (Westminster). These, coupled
with the initial text of our subject, that when the Duke
(Henry II) came over he rendered null the money of
most of the barons (Hoveden), point to the explanation
that, so long as Roger Bigod was merely the King's
castellan of Ipswich, the third penny of the mint and
of the two Hundreds was paid to Earl Alan. But
whereas, on the one hand, the Bigod's influence always
remained in the ascendant scale, on the other, Earl
Alan's connexion with England was being gradually
severed, until in the early years of Henry I he was
actually in arms for William Clito against the King.
The time therefore arrived, probably during the reign of
Rufus, when the Bigod was strong enough to stop the
payment of the entire tertius denarius of burg, mint, and
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 233
Hundreds. But on the accession of the House of Plan-
tagenet it was Henry IFs policy to cripple the power of
the great Earl of East Anglia of Stephen's creation, and
so he reduced his castles and suppressed his mint so far
as its grantee's character was concerned, but revived the
old third penny of the Comitatus of Ipswich, less the
fees from its mint, in favour of the Earl of Brittany.
Thus the lordship of Ipswich, and therefore of the Ipswich
mint, remained throughout in the hands of the Bigods,
similarly as we have seen Eudo Dapifer, first as castellan
but later as grantee, held the burg and mint of Colchester
(pp. 162-164:).
Such was the position when Henry I ascended the
throne in 1100. Roger Bigod was in England and
witnessed the coronation charter, and between that date
and the year 1107, his name appears upon many English
charters. Hence types 251 (1100-1102), 253 (1104-1J06),
and 252 (1106-1108), are existent of the Ipswich mint.
It will, however, be noticed that type 254 for the years
1102-1104 (Michaelmas) is missing, and, curiously enough,
now that the Tewkesbury grant is believed to be spurious,
these are the only two years to which it is difficult to
assign any charter bearing his name, for that to Thetford
Priory was apparently given in December, 1104. Never-
theless, it is more probable that the types may be incom-
plete than that the man who is credited with having
fought at Hastings should be abroad in his old age.
We may assume that he was twice married, but left no
male issue by his first wife, for Adeliza, his widow, sur-
vived him for many years, and is mentioned in the 1130
Pipe Roll. By her he left two sons, William and Hugh, and
a daughter, Matilda, who subsequently became the wife
of William de Albini. William and Hugh must have
234 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
been in early infancy at the time of their father's death,
for William was "a youth" when he perished in 1120,
and Hugh survived his father for more than seventy
years.
The unfortunate history of William Bigod, the elder
of the brothers, is almost identical with that of Richard,
the young heir to the Earldom of Chester. They seem
to have been of about the same age though Richard
would be a little the elder and no doubt they were
brought up at the King's court as companions to their
contemporary, the young Prince William. They both
witness the St. Evroul charter in Normandy in 1113,
and return to England together, presumably to take
seizin of their estates, in 1119, for on that occasion they
grant confirmation charters in England, the one to St.
Werburg's at Chester, the other to Thetford Priory.
The date of the latter charter could not be earlier than
the death of Queen Matilda, May 1st, 1118, nor later
than that of Herbert, Bishop of Norwich, July 22, 1119.
The parallel is continued, for they return to Normandy, and
on the 25th of November, 1120, whilst once more attempt-
ing the crossing of the Channel, they, together with their
colleague, William the Etheling, perish in the White Ship.
The entry in the 1130 Pipe Roll, that "William Bigod,
at the time of his death, owed 100 on account of his
[succession] fees, which his brother [Hugh] will pay for
him, if the King should wish," raises a doubt whether
his succession was ever completed by the King's con-
firmation. For if Hugh Bigod had succeeded his brother
there seems no reason why the sheriff should have referred
the matter to the King, for Hugh Bigod could only have
taken the estates with their liability ; but if there was a
doubt whether he did not succeed as heir to his father
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 235
because his brother died before acquiring absolute pos-
session, the meaning of the paragraph is at least clearer.
Therefore, between the death of Roger Bigod in 1107,
and that of William Bigod in 1120, there was no
grantee in possession of the burg of Ipswich or of its
mint, and so no coins representing that interval are
extant of it.
At the date of his brother's death Hugh Bigod was
probably but fifteen or sixteen years of age, for despite
the prominent position in which that event suddenly
placed him, as heir to the vast estates of the Bigod, his
name does not appear in any charter until two years
later. He was a ward of the King, and as such would
be attached to the court, and yet he did not witness any
of the charters granted in January, 1121, upon the occa-
sion of the King's second marriage. We know from the
instances of Robert, the King's natural son, Richard,
afterwards Earl of Chester, and, no doubt, of William
Bigod, that youths of eighteen years of age were so
admitted as witnesses. Assuming, therefore, that he
did not attain that age until late in the year 1122, we
have still the remarkable instance in 1175 of an Earl
71 years of age rising in rebellion (Wendover), and in
his 74th year recorded as joining the Crusades !
It may be new to call attention to Hugh Bigod's name
as a witness to a charter of 1122, but that of Hugh de
la Val to Pontefract Priory, which the King and he
attested, must have been granted at York when " King
Henry was making his survey of Northumbria " (Orderic)
in December of that year. He next attests a charter to
the Church of Exeter, usually styled the Plympton
charter. Unfortunately it is not above suspicion, for
its strict date ought to be August, 1123, whilst the
236 NUMISMATIC CHROXICLE.
King was at Rouen, but in Feudal England Mr. Round
is inclined to attribute it to the Easter court at Winchester
in the same year. Hugh Bigod certainly accompanied
Henry to Normandy in that year, for we find his name
to charters at Caen and Rouen in 1124 and 1125, and
up to this date it is highly improbable that one so young
would be entrusted with the custody of Ipswich.
In September, 1126, however, he would have returned
with the King to England. He was now of age, and as
we know that he had not only been confirmed in his here-
ditary possessions before the current year of the Pipe
Roll (1129-1130), but had apparently then paid off his
succession fees, we may assume that he was now duly
installed at Ipswich. This date is the more probable
because it would be expedient that the young Bigod
should be in a position, as a baron of East Anglia, to
swear fealty to the Empress Matilda at the forthcoming
Christmas ceremony. Moreover, his confirmation charter
must have been granted before the following August, as
he then again left England. Hence type 265 (1126-1128)
now appears from the Ipswich mint. He remained in
England less than a year, for he accompanied the King
to Normandy in August, 1127, and this probably explains
the reason that very few specimens remain to us of type
265. From this time forward he witnesses most of the
King's charters, and so we find him at Rouen and
Chartres until July, 1131. Then we know that he
returned with Henry to England, for he witnessed the
Arques charter " in transitu meo in Angliam " (Documents
in France). He attended the great council at Northamp-
ton in September, 1131, and witnessed numerous English
charters until 1133. Types 262 (1128-1131) and 255
(1131-1135) are therefore in evidence at Ipswich. In
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 237
August, 1133, he once more journeyed with the King to
Normandy and was present at the latter 's death.
The mint at Ipswich fell into abeyance during the
earlier years of Henry II, and, after a short revival, was
abolished in the reign of John or Henry III.
COINS.
* EDGAR ON 6PIE 253
Simpson Rostron Sale, 1892, 2 6s.
* GERMAN: [ON :G]IPE: 4-hENEIEVSE: 262
S. Page. The moneyer coined here in Stephen's
reign, and the family occur as Suffolk tenants
in Domesday.
Mr. Page has contributed many notes of the
coins of this and the following reign.
ON GIPE * HENRI REX 251
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. From the Boyne
Sale, 1896. The ornamented is a sur-
vival of Saxon art.
frLIIFPINE ON 6IP * HENRI RE 253
J. S. Henderson. PI. II, No. 10. From
Montagu, 1896, 8 12s. 6d., and Shepherd,
1885, 8 8s., Sales. Found in Somerset-
shire. This and the preceding moneyer's
name are contracted from that of Leofwine,
who coined here in the previous reign, and
his ancestors in Saxon times.
frOSBERN : ON : GIPE : 255,
Watford find ; 4 specimens. Osbern continued
to coin here in the following reign, and a
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. II
233 NUMISMATIC CHRONK'LK.
Richard Fitz-Osbern held a Suffolk fief under
Earl Bigod in 1165.
*OSBE . . . . 6IPE : * ........ 255
British Museum. Presented by Mr. Rashleigh.
J.O . BE . . ON 6IP . : .frhEN . . . 255
British Museum. Presented by Mr. Rashleigh.
J.OSBERN . . . . PE : . . . NRIE : 255
B. Roth.
frO . . ER . ON : 6IP : *I\ENRIEYS R : 255
Late J. Toplis. From the Nottingham find.
N : ON : 6IP : . . . N 255
Linton find. 21 grs.
*OSPOLDVS : ON . IP : *I\ENRIE : 262
Watford find. The name occurs on Saxon
coins of East Anglia.
* ROLAND ON 6IPE 265
McEwan Sale, 1854.
^RODLAND ON filPE : .frlxENRI . . . R : 262
British Museum.
Sale at Edinburgh, 1884 . . . .252
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 239
LEICESTER.
LEHERCEASTER, LECERCEASTER, LEIRECEASTER, LIHRACE ASTER,
LIGRACEASTER, LiGERCEASTER ; Domesday, LEGECESTER ;
Pipe Roll, LEGRECESTRA.
Leicester, the Rates of the Romans and the Cair Lerion
or city of the Leir of Nennius, abounds with Roman
antiquities, and is probably one of our oldest English
towns. During the eighth and ninth centuries it was
the See of the bishopric which ultimately became that of
Lincoln. In 874, when the Danes subdued Mercia, the
See was removed to Dorchester, and Leicester became one
of the famous " Five Danish Burgs," but in 918 the
Saxon Chronicle tells us that Ethelfleda, King Alfred's
daughter, " got into her power, by treaty, the burh at
Leicester." This, as Mr. I.. C. Gould in the Antiquary
for December, 1900, demonstrates, must have been the
existing artificial mound, and was therefore of Danish
origin. Its freedom was, however, short-lived, for the
same Chronicle, under 941, recites :
" Five burgs, Leicester and Lincoln and Nottingham,
So Stamford eke, and Derby
To Danes were erewhile under Northmen
By need constrained, in captive chains
A long time." (Dr. Giles.)
But in 943 "King Edmund besieged King Anlaf and
Archbishop "Wulfstan in Leicester, and would have taken
them were it not that they broke out of the town by
night."
From this time Leicester prospered, and at the date of
the Conquest was a town of considerable population and
wealth.
240 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1081. King William had evidently, to use Orderic's words,
" granted the town of Leicester to Hugh de Grant-
mesnil " prior to this date, for the latter gives certain
tithes of his demesne at Leicester to the Abbey of
St. Evroul." (Orderic.)
1086. Domesday notes. " The city of Leicester " in the
time of the Confessor paid to the King 30 by num-
ber [credited] at 20 [pennies] to the ounce, and 15
pints of honey. When the King raised a land force
twelve burgesses accompanied him, but if it was for
service by sea, they supplied four horses from the
burg as far as London to carry the arms, &c.
Now King William, for all payments of the city and
county, has 42 10s. by weight. For one hawk
[" pro uno accipitre " but is not this an error for
"accapite" relief for the military service ?] 10 by
number; for the pack-horse 20s. "From the
moneyers 20 per annum [credited] at 20 [pennies]
to the ounce. From these 20 Hugh de Grantmesnil
has the tertius denarius'' The King has in Leicester
39 houses, and, inter alia, Hugh de Grantmesnil has
2 churches and 110 houses, and, in addition, he has
24 in common with the King.
1100. At the date of Henry I's accession, Hugh de
Grantmesnil had been succeeded by his second, sur-
viving, son, Ivo, who had " held for some time his
father's domains in England." (Orderic.) He re-
fused to acknowledge the King, and
1101. " Set the example of engaging in war on his own
account, and gave to the flames the territories of his
neighbours, such private wars being hitherto unknown
in England." (Orderic.)
1102. For this he is called to account and convicted, but
he offered to join the second crusade, and " implored
the assistance of Robert, Earl of Mellent, one of
Henry's principal counsellors," and made an agree-
ment with him, namely, " The Earl was to procure
his reconciliation with the King, and to advance him
500 silver marks for the expenses of his expedition,
receiving the whole of Ivo's domains in pledge for
fifteen years. In return the Earl was to give the
daughter of his brother Henry, Earl of Warwick, to
Ivo's son, then an infant, in marriage, and ultimately
to restore to him his father's possessions. This con-
tract was confirmed by oath and ratified by the King's
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 241
consent." Ivo joined the crusade and died on the
way. (Orderic.)
" The town of Leicester had four masters the
King, the Bishop of Lincoln, Earl Simon [of North-
ampton], and Ivo, son of Hugh. The Earl of Mel-
lent contrived to get a footing in it by the possession
of Hugh's share, who was reeve and sheriff, and also
farmed the King's fourth of the burg. By the
royal favour and his own address he got the whole
into his own hands, and being, in consequence,
created an English Earl, his wealth and power sur-
passed those of any other peer of the realm. . . .
His conscience being blinded by such prosperity, he
forfeited his oath in favour of Ivo's son, so that, at
the time appointed, the young man neither obtained
the wife he had been promised, nor recovered his
hereditary estates according to the contract which
the Earl of Mellent had sworn." In another passage
the same authority says : " Robert fortunately received
from King Henry a grant of the earldom of Leicester,
with many other rich favours." (Forester's Orderic.)
1103. " The King of England commissioned Robert, Earl
of Mellent, to put an end to the intestine divisions of
Normandy." (Orderic.)
1104. Earl Robert welcomes the King in Normandy.
(Orderic.)
1105. Again receives the King on his second visit at
Easter. (Orderic.)
1106. Commands the second division of the royal army
at Tinchebrai. (Orderic.)
1107. Lent. Returns with the King to England, wit-
nesses two charters at the Easter Court at Windsor,
and refounds the church of St. Mary de Castro at
Leicester. (Monasticon.)
1108. Witnesses the foundation charter of Lenton Priory,
but in July accompanies Henry to Normandy, and is
mentioned by Orderic as opposing the Countess of
Evreux.
1109-10. Returns with the King to England, and wit-
nesses the charters to St. Andrews, Northampton,
Durham, and Ely, the confirmation charter to Lenton,
its grant to Cluny Abbey, and the writ to St. Peter's,
Ghent.
1110. August. Leaves England for Normandy with the
King.
242 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
With the exception of a visit to England in 1114-17,
he remains in Normandy for the remainder of his life.
1110-1118. In Normandy witnesses charters to St.
Evroul's, St. Amand's, St. Wandrille's, to the Abbeys
of Troan and of the Holy Trinity at Tiron.
1114-1117. He visits England and witnesses the charter
to Hyde Abbey at Barnham, Sussex, upon the journey,
the Tavistock charter at Westminster, and that to
Hulme Abbey in 1117.
1118. June 5. He died in Normandy, and was buried
at Preaux. He left, with other issue, two sons,
Waleran and Robert, twins, born in 1104. Waleran,
as the elder, presently succeeding to his Norman
possessions as Earl of Mellent, and Robert, following
the usual custom as the second son, ultimately be-
coming Earl of Leicester.
1119. During the rising in Normandy, " Waleran and
Robert, the young sons of the Earl of Mellent, were
faithful to their allegiance, and their vassals, in their
well-fortified castles, obeyed all the royal commands,
and stoutly resisted the attacks of the enemy."
(Orderic.)
1122. " The King had kindly brought up, as if they were
his own children, Waleran and Robert . . . from the
time of their father's death. . . . The two young
men, on arriving at the age of puberty, received
knighthood at the King's hands, and Waleran was
put in possession of all his father's domains on this
[the Norman] side of the sea. . . . His brother
Robert had the earldom of Leicester in England, and
the King gave him in marriage Amicia, daughter of
Ralph de Guader, who had been affianced to his own
[illegitimate] son Richard, with Breteuil and the
lands held under it for her dowry." (Forester's
Orderic.)
1123. Count Waleran revolts in Normandy, is taken
prisoner in 1124, sent to England, and "kept prisoner
for five years." (Orderic.)
Meanwhile, the younger Robert is kept in close
attendance at the King's Court, for he witnesses the
charter to Bee in 1121, the Plympton and Tewkesbury
charters at the Easter Court at Winchester in 1123,
and the charter to St. Mary's, Coutances, in
1124.
1128-1129. At Rouen witnesses the charter to St. Barbe-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 243
en-Ange, but returns with the King to England in
July, 1129.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The Earl of Leicester accounts
for 50 19s. for the cornage and forest rights which
belong to him, pays 23 6s. 8d., and owes 27 12s. 4d.
Eichard FitzNigel accounts for 40 on an Exchequer
plea for full weight of silver, pays 20 marks, is par-
doned 20 marks, and owes 20 marks. Ralph the
Pincerna and Morin del Pin owe 42 13s. 4d. for
custody of the land of the Earl of Leicester.
1130-31. The Earl again accompanies the King to Nor-
mandy at Michaelmas, 1130, and witnesses the charter
to St. Mary de Deserto at Rouen. He returns with the
King in July, 1131, witnessing the latter's charter to
Bee Abbey at Arques " in transitu meo in Angliam."
1131. September 8. Is at the Northampton Council and
witnesses the charters to Salisbury and Dover.
1133. August. Is in England, and witnesses the charter
to St. John's, Falaise, at Winchester.
1133-35. In Normandy, witnesses charters to St. Mary's,
Evreux, and St. Mary's, Coutances, at Rouen ; and is
present at Henry's death at Lyons.
The mint at Leicester which according to a schedule
of the monastery of St. Mary de Pratis was close to the
north bridge seems to have been established shortly after
the recovery of the burg from the Danes by Eadmund
the Martyr, for we have coins of it bearing his name ;
and also of every succeeding Saxon King.
In the reign of the Conqueror, Hugh de Grantmesnil's
position at Leicester was very nearly, but not quite, that
of an earl. He was castellan and sheriff, but he had not
the tertius denarius of the pleas of the county which would
have given him the earldom. He, however, had the
" tertius denarius " of the mint, which constituted him its
grantee, although it still retained its quasi royal privileges
and thus came within the scope of the Survey.
Hugh de Grantmesnil died in the time of Rufus and
was succeeded by his son Ivo, who in 1101 "had held for
244 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
some time his father's domains in England." Immediately
upon Henry's accession, however, he joins the cause of
Duke Robert and in 1101 openly revolts from the King.
He would therefore certainly not issue Henry's money, if
indeed, which is very doubtful, he ever received his con-
firmation charter from that King. Hence type 251 is
absent from our Leicester coins. Mr. Round, in Feudal
England, points out that it must have been during this
insurrection that the town of Leicester suffered the great
devastation recorded in the account of the foundation of
Leicester Abbey. This is borne out by the fact that if it
had occurred at the time of the Conquest, Domesday would
have referred to more than the four houses as " waste,"
which is an unusually small number for a town of over
300 houses. Our coins also suggest that something of
the kind had occurred early in Henry's reign, for it would
explain the very small coinage which appears to have
been issued from the mint during many subsequent years.
At this time, says Orderic, " the town of Leicester had
four masters," but their shares in it were by no means
equal. For instance, Simon, Earl of Northampton, would
hold the original share of the Countess Judith as the
husband of her daughter (see page 221), which at the date
of Domesday only comprised twenty-eight houses and a
half share in the mill. The Bishop of Lincoln then had
the remaining half share in the mill, two churches, seven-
teen burgesses, and a tithe from certain land " without
the wall." Thus Ivo de Grantmesnil held by far the lion's
share and he also farmed the King's portion as castellan.
"We have seen how, in 1102, Robert, Earl of Mellent, con-
trived to obtain first the legal estate and shortly after-
wards, on the death of Ivo in 1103, what we should now
term the foreclosure of the latter's estates at Leicester,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 245
for the death of either party to an agreement in those
days was considered sufficient to release the other.
Reading between the lines of a transaction, which at the
best does not redound to Earl Robert's credit, we may infer
that he had already been appointed by the King castellan
of Leicester in Ivo's stead, and that Ivo's conviction and
fine were such that his only hope of escape from imprison-
ment was to claim service again as a soldier of the Cross,
and that he was content if he could but bargain for his
English possessions to become the ultimate dowry of his
son's wife. As in 1103 Earl Simon of Northampton also
joined the crusade and a future matrimonial alliance was
arranged between the two families, we may perhaps safely
surmise that the wealthy Earl of Mellent also equipped
Earl Simon by purchasing his share in the town of
Leicester. Finally, if we set off the promised refoundation
and endowment of the principal church of Leicester
against the claims of the Bishop of Lincoln, we follow
Orderic step by step until Earl Robert " got the whole
place into his own hands, being in consequence created
an English Earl." That Earl Robert did not style him-
self " Earl of Leicester " is no argument against the
creation, for the title was always secondary to that of
Mellent.
The mint now falls into his hands and he at once issues
type 254 (1102-1104). But during its currency he is
appointed representative of the King in Normandy and
remains there until early in 1107, hence the interim type
253 is absent from our coins of this town. But from
Lent, 1107, to July, 1108, he remains in England, and so
type 252 (1106-1108) is in evidence of this visit. In
1109 he is in England, but no Leicester coin of the cur-
rent type 256 seems as yet to be forthcoming. From this
VOL, I. FOURTH SERIES. K K
246
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
date to the time of his death in 1118 he resides in Nor-
mandy, with the exception of the visit to England in
1114-17, the evidence of which, as given in the Hyde,
Tavistock and Hulme Abbey charters (the latter dated
1117), is to some extent corroborated by a coin of type
264 (1116-1118), which, although the letters are not quite
distinct, seems to have been struck at Leicester. The
man who had fought at Hastings is now well stricken in
years and spends the closing year of his life in his old
home. Just as Eudo, the King's Dapifer of Normandy,
remained in that country from the year 1108 to his death
at Preaux in 1120, and his mint at Colchester was closed
during the entire period, so Earl Robert, the King's
administrator of Normandy, remains there from the year
1110 to his death at Preaux in 1118, with the exception
of the years 1114-17, and his mint at Leicester is also
similarly closed, save during his visit to England as just
mentioned.
The twins, Waleran and Robert, were but fourteen years
old at the time of their father's death, and therefore,
although their names appear in charters during the inter-
val, they would not be put into possession of their estates
before 1125. We are incidentally informed by Orderic
that Morin del Pin was appointed, by the King, guardian
and tutor to the young Count Waleran, and so we may
infer that he acted in that capacity to both the brothers,
who, we are told, were brought up by the King as if they
were his own sons. Waleran as the elder was heir to the
Norman and French estates and Robert to the Earldom
of Leicester. In 1119 they were both at their hereditary
castle of Breteuil, and although they were too young to
take part in the Norman war of that j'ear, Morin del
Pin as castellan on their behalf greatly assisted the
-A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 247
King's cause. In 1123, Count Waleran "ardently de-
sired an opportunity of exhibiting his youthful valour,"
and being " eager to win the honour of knighthood "
(Orderic), revolted from the King and took the field for
"William Clito. After showing considerable personal
bravery he was, however, taken prisoner in 1124, ulti-
mately sent as such to England, and " kept prisoner
during five years." It is important to notice that his
release would therefore date in the year 1129.
Meanwhile, we can quite understand that King Henry
would keep a tight hand upon the younger brother, and
so we find from the evidence of numerous charters that
from 1121 to 1130 he was constantly in attendance upon
the King himself. He came of age in 1125, but under
the circumstances of his brother's recent revolt, in which,
according to Matthew of Westminster, he was also con-
cerned, to place him in independent power at Leicester
would have been contrary to Henry's astute policy. Like
the young Earl of Chester he had been dubbed an Earl
from the age of eighteen at least, if not from the time of
his father's death, but the Pipe Eoll proves that he received
the confirmation charter of his Leicester estates in 1129-
1130.
His brother, Count "Waleran, was released from prison in
1129 and " regranted the rental of his estates " (William de
Monte), but was retained at the King's Court (Sax. Chron.).
At the same time the King appears to have confirmed
the Earldom of Leicester to Robert. This is proved by
the entry that Ralph the Pincerna and Morin del Pin,
who, we remember, was the young Earl's guardian and
tutor, owed 42 13s. 4d. for custody of the land of the
Earl of Leicester. Up to about September 29th, 1129,
therefore, these two, one the King's representative, the
248 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
other the steward of the household of the late Earl of
Mellent and the guardian of the young Earl Robert, had
been collectors of the revenue of the Earldom. They pay
42 13s. 4d., which, allowing for the difference between a
current payment and one " by weight," is, no doubt, the
exact firma of 42 10s., as given in Domesday of the
city and county, thus showing that the Earl had not as
yet his third penny. That their office was now at an end is
shown by the entry that the Earl himself accounts for the
cornage and forest rights, and so we thus ascertain that
the pardon of Count Waleran and the confirmation charter
of the Earldom of Leicester to Earl Robert were concur-
rently granted in 1129, when, for the first time after
attaining twenty years of age, the young Earl, in the
retinue of the King, set foot in England. Hence up to
this date no coinage at Leicester was possible, but now
type 262 (1128-1131) naturally appears from the
mint.
Morin del Pin had been concerned in Count Waleran's
revolt and according to Orderic, who was evidently un-
aware of his administration of Leicester, " was banished
from Normandy and continued in exile in foreign lands
till the day of his death." It was, no doubt, at that date
1124 that Henry transferred his immediate guardian-
ship of the young Earl of Leicester to Ralph Pincerna,
and it was over the attestation of the latter that the Earl
at Breteuil granted his first three charters of privileges
to the burgesses of Leicester, confirming their guild of
merchants, their local jurisdiction of trial, and their
freedom from forestry toll of passage. Ralph was the
grandson of Hugh Pincerna, who held a barony in Essex
at the date of Domesday. As such Ralph was hereditary
Pincerna, and in 1130 was receiving grants from the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 249
revenue of six counties. He afterwards founded Alcester
Abbey.
The remaining entry quoted from the Roll that
Richard Fitz Nigel accounts for 40 "p. plac. scrinii
plen. arg." is exactly a case in point, as described by the
Dialogue of the Exchequer (see page 8), of a former sheriff
having to bear the loss or a part of it of debased or
light money in his returns for the county.
On the 8th September, 1131, the Earl attends the
great council of Northampton and there witnesses several
of the King's charters, but after this it is suggested that
he joined his brother at Breteuil. As Mr. Round points
out, the twins seem almost invariably associated in the
history of their time, and it is significant that whilst
between the autumn of 1131 and August, 1133, Earl
Robert's name disappears from English charters, there are
several granted in Normandy bearing it which with some
confidence can be assigned to the interval. For instance,
of the three before-mentioned charters granted by the
Earl to the burgesses of Leicester, two are stated to have
been, and the third, probably, was executed at Breteuil.
These could not have been granted before the Earl
received his estates, and, as they are all witnessed by
Ralph Pincerna, not before the date probably Michael-
mas in 1130 when Ralph returned his accounts in the
Roll, for he was then still in England. Hence, as the Earl
was only in Normandy for a few months between that
date and September, 1131, it is improbable that he
would then have granted three distinct charters to
Leicester, when they could well have awaited his return.
We may therefore assume that they were granted after
September, 1131, when the Earl had taken up his perma-
nent abode at Breteuil. On the other hand, one of them
250 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
at least is a confirmation charter, so would not long be
delayed. A reason for his residence in Normandy and for
the presence of Ralph Pincerna may be the fact that, as
William de Monte tells us, though the King regranted the
rental of his estates to Count Waleran, he would not entrust
to him his castles. It is true that Earl Robert's name
appears on the Winchester charter to St. John's, Falaise,
dated 1133 ; but it seems to stand alone between 1131 and
1135 against the numerous charters of Normandy, and
as we know that the Earl was in the latter country from
1133 to the King's death in 1135, we may assume that it
represented but a passing visit to England and that his
residence during the whole period of issue of type 255
(September 29th, 1131 to 1135) was otherwise in Nor-
mandy. This only would explain the absence from our
cabinets of a Leicester specimen of so plentiful a type as
255.
Our coins tell us that this mint was continued until the
early years of Henry II, and the entry in the 1156 Pipe
Roll, that the sheriff spent 12s. 6d. in conducting [to
trial] the false moneyers of Leicester, may offer some ex-
planation of its suppression.
COINS.
^EDMVND : ON LEB, .J-hENBICVS : 264
L. A. Lawrence. From Viscount Dillon's Sale,
1892. The Earl probably introduced this
moneyer from Lincoln, where the name fre-
quently occurs on Saxon and Norman coins.
Note the connection between these towns
referred to on pages 241 and 245.
4.FVIL6BED ON LE -frfiENKI : EE : 252
British Museum. Fig. D, p. 52. PI. VIII. No. 4,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 251
This moneyer also came from Lincoln, where
he had coined for Rufus.
frFYGEED ON LE *I\ENEIE EEX 252
Engraved, Snelling, i., 14 ; Ending, Sap.,
i. 9. From the Hodsoll and Tyssen, 1802,
collections. Probably the previous coin.
*WAEM . . ON LE 262
Montagu Sale, 1897, and Wakeford collection.
frWAEM . . ON LE IxENE . . . S E 262
Watford find. But read -frWAEM .... INEE
and appropriated to Winchester.
ON : LEEE : IxENEIEY . EE 262
Watford find.
frPVLFPIlSE ON1EE *HENEI EEX 264
L. A. Lawrence.
ON LEI ^HENEI E 254
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University. The
LEI is no doubt part of LEE, contracted
for want of space.
For coins of types 251, 263 and IV., hitherto usually
assigned to this mint, see under Chester, Lewes and
Winchester.
LEWES (SUSSEX).
L.ZEWES, L.EWEN, LESWA ; Domesday and the Pipe Roll, LEWES.
Lewes claims Celtic and Roman antiquity, and the
252 NVMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
numerous tumuli and earthworks surrounding it certainly
corroborate a remote origin. The town was a royal
demesne of the Saxon Kings, from whom it received the
privilege of a market, and it was a place of considerable
importance at the date of the Conquest.
1086. Domesday notes. The burg of Lewes in the Con-
fessor's time returned 6 4s. 3d. for tax and toll.
King Edward had 127 burgesses in lordship, whose
custom was that, if the King wished to send his
burgesses to guard the sea without accompanying
them, twenty shillings were collected from all the men,
irrespective as to whomsoever the land [which they
held] belonged, which those who had charge of the
arms in the ships had. The fines and market duea
are set out in detail. When the money is renewed
(i.e., the type changed) each moneyer gives 20s. Of
all these, two parts were the King's and the third the
Earl's. Now the burg in all things pays the same as
before and 38s. in addition. In the time of the Con-
fessor the whole was worth 26. The King had the
middle [penny] and the Earl had the remainder.
Now it is worth 34, and for new money (i.e., a change
of type) one hundred and twelve shillings ; from all of
these [payments] William de Warren has the middle
[penny] and the King the remainder.
1100. William de Warren, who was created Earl of
Surrey, died from the effects of a wound received at
the siege of Pevensey, and had been succeeded by his
son William de Warren II, now in England.
1100-1. He is confirmed in his possessions by Henry I,
who grants a charter to Lewes Priory "rogatu Williebni
Comitis Sugreg." (Monastic on.)
But meanwhile, "at first in secret but afterwards
openly," he advocates Duke Robert's claims. (Orderic.)
1101. Midsummer. At Arundel, ostensibly in arms for
the King, he witnesses the charter to Otho fitz Otto
the Aurifaber (see page 47).
August. Deserts Henry's camp and joins Duke
Robert on his arrival. (Orderic.)
September. After the declaration of peace he
accompanies Duke Robert to Henry's Court and wit-
nesses the charters to Bath and Norwich. (Monas-
ticon.)
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HEXRY I. 253
November. Duke Robert returns to Normandy,
" taking with him William de Warren and several
others who had been disinherited for their share in
his enterprise." (Orderic.)
1102-3. In Normandy De Warren witnesses Duke Robert's
charter to St. Stephen's, Caen. (Docs, of France.)
1103, Presents himself " in great distress to Duke Robert
and represents to him the severe loss he had sustained
in bis services, having forfeited his Earldom of Surrey,
which had produced him the yearly revenue of a
thousand pounds of silver," urging him to procure
his pardon and restoration.
The Duke visits the King in England (see page 51)
and effects the restoration of De Warren to " the
Earldom of Surrey," who " afterwards adhered faith-
fully to the King."
1106. The Earl commands the third division of the
Royal army at Tinchebrai. (Orderic.)
1107-10. In England witnesses the charters to St. Mary's
Bee, Northampton, Durham, Ely, and St. Peter's,
Ghent.
About this time he is appointed castellan of St.
Saens. (Orderic.)
1118. March 7. In Normandy witnesses the charter
to the Holy Trinity, Savigny; and in 1115 that to
the Holy Trinity, Tiron, at Rouen. (Docs, of
France.)
1116-18. Returns to England and witnesses the charters
to St. Mary's, Rouen, and Hulme Abbey.
1119. August. Joins the army in Normandy and takes a
leading part in the battle of Bre"mule.
1121-3. In England witnesses the charters to Bardney,
Binham, and Plympton.
1128-1130. Accompanies Henry to Normandy in 1123
and remains there until 1130, witnessing the charters
to Hyde Abbey, Mont St. Michel, Lessay, Fecamp
(2), St. Mary's, Evreux, St. Mary de Deserto, St.
Barbe-en-Ange, St. Laurence of Envermeu, &c., and
grants his own charter to Longueville Priory. (Mon-
asticon and Docs, of France.)
1180. Pipe Roll notes. The Roll is here defective, but it
appears that the sheriff accounts for 9 for Danegeld,
sixty marks of silver for two murders in the Hundred ,
ten marks for one in the burg of Lewes, and
12 7s. 6d. for murders in the previous year and
VOL. 1. FOURTH SERIES. L L
254 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
treasury pleas. These sums are paid " by the King's
writ to the Earl of Warren."
1131. The Earl is still in Normandy and witnesses the
charter of Fontevrault, January 13th, and the Papal
Bull to Clany, May 20th. (Docs, of France.)
July. Returns with the King to England, witness-
ing the charter to Bee at Arques on the journey.
(Docs, of France.)
September 8. Is at the "Northampton Council and
witnesses the charters to Salisbury and Dover. (Mon-
asticon.) And, probably at this date, grants his own
charter to Lewes Priory.
1132-3. Witnesses the charters to St. Jean de Falaise at
Harden, Sussex, and at Winchester. (Docs, of
France.)
1133-5. Accompanies King Henry to Normandy and is
present at his death at Lyons. (Orderic.)
Lewes was one of the towns which were allowed two
moneyers under the Law of King Athelstan, and coins
reading L.ZE of that King are assigned to it. It became a
prolific mint under the later Saxon Kings and the names
of all, from Edgar to Harold II, appear upon its
coins.
As constituted by the Law of Athelstan, that of Lewes
was a royal mint. The moneyers, therefore, were tenants
in capite of the King and paid their fees to him. Hence
in Domesday we find that under the Confessor each
moneyer paid 20s. when a new type was issued, of which
the Earl, however, had the tertius denarius. But in the
same paragraph we are told that, in 1086, the town " is
worth 34, and for new money 112s., of which William
de Warren receives the tertius denarius." To the casual
observer this would appear to be a mere increase in the
assessment of the mint, but it did not necessarily mean
even that, for of the thirteen moneyers at Lewes during
the reign of the Confessor, there were possibly half-a-
dozen each paying the 20s. in office at one and the same
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 255
time. The distinction is much more important. Under
the Confessor the moneyers were individually assessed,
but in 1086 the burg was assessed at 34 in ordinary
years, which was increased by 5 12s. in the years when
the money was changed. This is abundant evidence that, as
at Huntingdon and Dorchester, " King William had laid
the tax of the mint on the burg " (see page 223) ; in
other words, had farmed the privilege of coinage to the
burgesses ; but it was, nevertheless, under the jurisdiction
of De Warren as holder of the tertius denarius of the
joint rent of burg and mint.
On Henry's accession, therefore, in 1100, coinage was
naturally continued by the burghers, for De Warren was
in England and receives his confirmation charter from
the new King, as is evidenced by the Lewes charter.
Type 251 (1100-1102) therefore now appears and gives
us the names of two moneyers. But in 1101 the mint
suddenly ceased, and we have no more coins bearing its
name during the entire reign. For thirty-four years the
privilege of coinage was withheld from the quasi royal
mint, which, botn* before and afterwards, was one of the
most prolific in the kingdom. It would not be sufficient
to explain this numismatic catastrophe by the misfor-
tunes of the Earl, for though, in any case, the mint
would necessarily have been closed during his exile,
after his restoration to the Earldom of Surrey, to which
the town of Lewes seems to have been appended, it would
have been reopened during the years he spent in England.
We must therefore look for another explanation. We
have seen from Domesday that the burg held its privi-
leges upon the custom of providing the men who had
charge of the arms in the ships which guarded the sea.
The expression, when the King called out his fleet " with-
256 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
out accompanying it," draws a distinction between the
ordinary use of the ships for mere transport of himself
and his army to Normandy and the ancient purpose of
the fleet for guarding the shore from invasion. The burg
of Lewes therefore supplied the armourers to the fleet
only in case of threatened invasion, and the burgesses
contributed 20s. towards their outfit. The news of Duke
Robert's invasion in the summer of 1101 called out the
fleet, and each ship would contain an armourer of Lewes,
whose position would probably be that of second in com-
mand, but who would be under the influence of his lord,
Earl Warren, then plotting the betrayal of the King.
This, in a great measure, explains the treachery of the
fleet which is recorded by Florence as follows :
1101. " Robert Earl of Normandy, having raised a large
body of horsemen, archers, and foot soldiers, assembled
his ships at a place called in the Norman tongue
Ultres-port. The King receiving intelligence of this,
ordered his boat-carles to guard the sea, and to watch
that no one approached the coast of England from Nor-
mandy ; . . . The Earl, however, by the advice of
Bishop Ralph, so tampered with the fidelity of some
of the King's boat-carles by promises of various kinds,
that, throwing off their allegiance, they deserted to
the Earl, and became his pilots to England."
(Forester.)
Thus the cases of Dover and Lewes are identical ; both
burgs held the privilege of coinage and coined plentifully
in type 251 ; both forfeited the privilege through the
treason of their boat-carles, and to neither was it restored
so long as King Henry lived.
The mint was reopened on Stephen's accession, but
seems to have been finally discontinued at the close of
his reign.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 257
COINS.
.frBRHTMR ON LEP [>H]EHH RE* 25 1
British Museum.
frBRHTMR ON . EP *HNNI RE . 251
W. J. Andrew. PI. II, No. 4. From the
Robinson Sale, 1891.
J.PINNRIED ON LEI *HNRI REX N 251
J. Verity. From the Durrant, 1847, 7 13s. Od.;
Wigan, Brice, and Montagu, 1896, 5 5s. Od.,
collections. This coin was perhaps correctly
attributed by Mr. Grueber to Chester, but
the legend .frPINRIED ON LIEP on some
of the Williams' types leaves the balance of
probability equal. (See Chester.)
Hugh Howard Sale, 1874. 251
As to the coin of type 264, previously given to this mint, see
pp. 41, 246, and 250.
LINCOLN.
LlNOOLNE, LlNCOLNIA, LlNDECOLNIA, NlCHOL, NlCOLE J
day, LINCOLIA ; Pipe Roll, LINCOLN.
Lincoln, " the fair city of Lindsey," was one of the
principal links in the great chain of Roman subjugation
of Britain. Later it was a British stronghold, and later
still one of " the Five Danish Burgs." Bede refers to
it as a city in his day, and records its early conversion
to Christianity under the year 627. It was the capital
of the Saxon Earls of Mercia, and as such was in the
arena of the Danish struggles for conquest. Neverthe-
258 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
less it continued to prosper, and at the close of the Saxon
era was one of the most prosperous and populous cities in
the kingdom.
1086. Domesday notes. In the city of Lincoln there
were, in King Edward's time, 970 inhabited houses,
computed, according to the English custom, of one
hundred for one hundred and twenty [i.e., 1,150].
There were and are twelve " lage-men " who had sac
and soc (whose names will be referred to presently).
The market and " wall " perhaps the Roman wall
are mentioned, and also Bishop Remigius (who had
lately transferred his See from Dorchester, in Oxford-
shire, to Lincoln, and has large ecclesiastical posses-
sions in Lincoln itself and the county). Of the
inhabited houses in the Confessor's time 200
according to the English numeration, i.e. 240 are
now waste, leaving 770 inhabited, 166 having been
destroyed for [the defences of] the castle. Ivo Tail-
lebois has large possessions in the county, and is
castellan of Lincoln.
"In the time of King Edward the city of Lincoln
paid 20 to the King and 10 to the Earl. Now it
pays 100 by number between the King and Earl.
But the mint pays 75."
1092. Death of Bishop Remigius (Florence). " Near the
castle, the lofty towers of which commanded the city,
Remigius built a cathedral, which for strength and
beauty was both fitting for the service and, as the
times required, impregnable to hostile attacks."
(Huntingdon.)
1098. Robert Bloet appointed Bishop.
1102. Upon Robert de Beleme's revolt Bishop Bloet, no
doubt in his capacity of Justiciary, commands the
Northern division of the King's army and subdues
the Earl's stronghold of Tickhill in Yorkshire. (Flor-
ence.)
1103. After recounting the death in Ireland of Magnus
Barefoot, King of Norway, Orderic tells us that "a
rich citizen of Lincoln kept the treasure of King
Magnus and supplied him with ornaments, plate, arms,
furniture, and whatever else the royal service required.
This man, having learnt the King's death, hastened
home, and trafficking with the King's treasure, speedily
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 259
amassed vast wealth. Meanwhile, the King of Eng-
land received the intelligence that Magnus was slain
with great satisfaction, feeling himself relieved from a
great burden, and some time afterwards [? in 1108]
required the citizen of Lincoln to give up the late
King's treasure. The merchant at first denied that
he had any such deposit, but the King, having con-
victed him of the falsehood, suddenly arrested him,
and extorted from him, as it is said, more than twenty
thousand pounds of silver." (Forester.)
1108-9. April. From a writ to St. Peter's at Ghent the
King is said to have now visited Lincoln. (Docs, in
France.) But the evidence " Apud Lint " is not
quite conclusive.
1121. "At this time Henry having, by digging, made a
long trench from Torksey as far as Lincoln, by turning
into it the river Trent, made a passage for shipping."
(Hoveden.) This ought to throw grave doubts
upon the generally accepted theory of the Roman
origin of the Fosse Dyke, although it is possible that
this (excepting, perhaps, the Danish dyke through
Southwark), our first ship canal, may have followed
the lines of some previously existing aqueduct.
Malmesiury describes Lincoln in his time (circa 1130-
1142) as " one of the most populous cities in Eng-
land, and a mart for all goods coming by land and
water."
1123. Sudden death of Bishop Bloet whilst riding with
the King at Woodstock. Huntingdon, in his " Letter
to Walter," says he was Justiciary of England, had
immense wealth and a gorgeous retinue of knights.
May. " Before the new Bishop came to the See,
the whole town of Lincoln was burnt, with a great
number of persons, both men and women ; and so
much barm was done that no man could tell another
how great the damage was." (Sax. Chron.)
July 22. Alexander, Archdeacon of Salisbury and
nephew of Roger, Bishop of that see, consecrated
Bishop of Lincoln.
1130. Pipe Koll notes. The burgesses pay 200 marks
of silver and 4 marks of gold that they may hold the
city [direct] from the King in capite [i.e., without
accounting through the sheriff for their firma see
Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 362], and 49 12s. 2d. tn
auxilium. The Weavers' Guild renders certain fees
1260 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
for its privileges, and Bishop Alexander owes 22 for
the previous year's military service. " Godric de
Grimsby pays 2J marks of silver on a certain Treasury
plea." " Gerard de Grimsby owes 17 Is. Od. on a
certain Treasury [account]." " Siwatus de Holland
accounts for 12 marks of silver on a plea of false
coining (fahonarii), pays 40s. and owes 9 marks."
" Osbertus Palmarius accounts for 15 marks of silver
for Toch the false coiner who absconded, pays 7
marks and owes 8 marks." " Gerardus de Linberga
(Limber) accounts for 20 marks of silver on a Treasury
plea, pays 5 marks and owes 15 marks.' 1 " Elwi
and Schiepman account for 10 marks of silver on a
Treasury plea, pay 4 and owe 6 marks (under Rut-
land)."
1181. May. King Henry by charter, which is confirmed
by Pope Innocent II, grants 40 marks of silver [" 50,"
according to one version, so the "40" is perhaps
according to the English custom] from the firma of
the City of Lincoln to the Abbey of Cluny, to be
annually paid through the Exchequer at Michaelmas.
(Docs, of France.)
The name of Lincoln first appears upon coins issued
during the Danish occupation of the city in the reigns of
Alfred and Edward the Elder ; and those who, like Mr.
Clark, Mr. Gould, and Mr. Round, are interested in the
study of pre-Norman earthworks, may notice how uni-
formly the origin of a mint seems to follow the probable
date of the completion of the great Danish or Saxon
Mound of its burh.
It was, no doubt, as a survival from the time when
Lincoln was the chief centre of the Danish occupation of
England that a branch of the Treasury of the Kings of
Norway remained at that city so late as the reign of
Henry I. The account of its confiscation, quoted above
from Orderic, under the year 1103, is peculiarly interest-
ing in view of certain coins of Magnus the Good, of
^Norway, and other Danish Kings of the eleventh century,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 261
perhaps even of Magnus Barefoot himself, which bear
the curious legends on the reverse * OSSAR MO LINE,
KSTEINBIT ON LINE, * LEFPINE ON LINEO and
*AREIL ON LINE [not LVND as sometimes printed]. May
we not, therefore, infer that " the rich citizen of Lincoln
who kept the treasure of King Magnus and supplied him
with ornaments, plate, arms, furniture, and whatever else
the royal service required," supplied him with money
struck at Lincoln ? A Lefwine coined here for Rufus,
and may not AREIL, who was coining in King Henry's
type 251 (1100-1102) just prior to the date of the inci-
dent, have been "the rich citizen" himself? This seems
to throw a new light upon Mr. S. Smith's interesting
paper in Num. Chron., 1888, p. 138.
From Edgar to Harold II the name of every King
appears upon the Lincoln coinage, and, with the exceptions
of those of London and Winchester, no mint was more
prolific in its output. This fact is not only evidenced in
our cabinets, but corroborated by Domesday, for the
returns of the two excepted cities are not recorded, but
the mint of Lincoln, in 1086, pays a considerably larger
firma than any other in the kingdom.
The historical light we are now enabled to throw upon
the Domesday records of Lincoln is startling. We have
seen that the Survey opens with the number of inhabited
houses and an account of twelve " lagernen " who had
soc and sac or tol and team. These " lagemen " have, not
unnaturally, been promoted into an imaginary civic
governing body or commune just a century before
any such municipal authority was possible in England !
To quote the words of a well-known authority :
" When in 1068 the Conqueror marched from York to Cam-
bridge he paused at Lincoln, even then a very important place,
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. M M
262 NUMISMATIC CHROXICLE.
fenced in and populous, not indeed as yet boasting a minster,
but numbering 1,150 inhabited houses, a leading member of the
famous Danish civic confederation, and governed by twelve
lawmen, who wielded powers elsewhere exercised by the terri-
torial lords." (Mediceval Military Architecture, vol. ii.,p. 193.)
To explain their true position we must, however, first
glance at the history of the city at this period. Up to
comparatively recently, before the date of Domesday, it
had been under the jurisdiction of the Earls of Mercia,
and, therefore, in the Confessor's time, we are told, the
Earl had the third penny. In 1086, however, the
Earldom had been forfeited and the Earl slain, but,
nevertheless, as at Dover (p. 175) and other places, the
usual custom was continued of maintaining the existing
tertius denarius in view of a possible revival of the Earl-
dom, which revival, in this instance, did afterwards occur
when, in the reign of Stephen, William de Roumare, the
descendant on the spindle side of the Saxon Earls of
Mercia, was created Earl of Lincoln. Hence Domesday
tells us that iheftrma of the city is now 100 " between the
King and the Earl," but, of course, the King also received
the Earl's share under the forfeiture. There is, however,
no such reservation concerning the firma of the mint ;
we read, "but the mint pays 75." This places the
mint upon an equal footing in the accounts with the city
itself, each is separately assessed, but the firma of the
mint is paid solely to the King, whereas that of the city
is divided between King and Earl. Thus the former
must have been excepted from the jurisdiction of the
Earl, and so remained throughout a royal mint pure and
simple.
To quote from our first page, " the moneyers of these
(the royal) mints only were, therefore, officers of the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I 263
Crown ; men, often, of considerable wealth and import-
ance, and in virtue of their office tenants in capite of the
King." It must be quite clear that if the mint at Lin-
coln was assessed directly to the King, its moneyers came
under the legal definition of tenants in capite as "holdin^
immediately from the King," and, as such, they were
entitled to their sac and soc. Just as the City of Lincoln
was responsible for the payment of a firma of 100, so
the moneyers of Lincoln were responsible for the pay-
ment of a firma of 75, and, therefore, it was equally
essential that their names or identity should be disclosed
in the Roll. Had there been but one or two, this would
not have been necessary, for the office would have been
rarely changed, but with so many as at Lincoln, it was
necessary to keep a constant record of those responsible
for the King's rent.
We now return to the record. The word " lagemen,"
in the quotation from Mediaeval Military Architecture, given
above, is evidently treated as being derived from laga=
law, i.e. "law-men." But in the 1130 Pipe Roll we
find the terms " smale manni " and " homines minuti " con-
stantly used to describe the serfs or bondmen ; so here
the term " lagemen " must surely mean the opposite,
* e. the free men or tenants in capite. In fact the term
survives to us in the King's proclamations to his " liege-
subjects." Thus, instead of implying some civic authority,
the twelve lagemen of the Lincoln Survey were merely
twelve citizens who were separately assessed to the King
as freemen holding their lands or offices directly from
him (cf. Oxford, pages 353-354).
Ought we not, therefore, to be able to identify some of
them as the King's tenants of the mint ? In the time of
the Confessor they were :
264 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1. "Hardecnut." " HAEDEENVT " appears on the
Lincoln coins of the previous reign, but we have not
yet found the name on the Confessor's coins.
2." Svartin[c], son of Grimbold." " SPAETINE,"
moneyer of the Confessor, and " GEIM," moneyer of
Ethelred II.
8.__ Vlf, son of Svertebrand." " VLF," moneyer of the
Confessor, and " SPEETEBEAND " of Harold I.
4. " Walraven." "PALEAFAN," moneyer of the Con-
fessor.
5. " Alwold." Not identified on our Lincoln coins.
6. " Britric." " BEIHTEIE," moneyer of the Confessor.
7._ Gnret." " 6IEE[T]," moneyer of the Confessor.
8._" Vlbert." ? " PVLBEN," moneyer of the Confessor.
9._" Godric, son of Eddeva." " GODEIE," moneyer of
the Confessor.
10. " Siward, a priest." Not identified.
11. "Lewine, a priest." ? "LEFPINE," moneyer of
the Confessor. As to a cleric holding this position,
see below and page 369.
12. " Aldene, a priest." Not identified.
Now, in 1086, they are
]. " Svardinc, in place of his father, Hardecnut." Not
identified.
2. " Svartinc " [son of Grimbold]. Not identified on
William's coins.
3. " Sortebrand, in place of his father, Vlf." Not
identified.
4. " Agemund, in place of his father, Walraven."
" AHEMVND," moneyer of William I.
5." Alwold." Not identified.
6. " Godwine," sen of Britric. " 60DPINE," moneyer
of William I.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY T. 265
7. " Norman ' crassus ' in the place of Guret." Not
identified.
8._" Vlbert, brother of Vlf, still lives." Not identified,
but " VLF " moneyer of William I.
9. " Peter de Valonges in the place of Godric fitz Ed-
deva." " PIKES," moneyer of William I [the sons of
Peter de Valonges took the name of Fitz-Piers].
10." Vlfnoth, a priest, in the place of Siward." " PVL-
NOD," moneyer of William II.
11. "Burvolt in the place of his father, Lewine, who
now is a monk." Not identified.
12. " Ledwine, son of Revene, in the place of Aldene,
the priest." " LEFPINE," moneyer of William I.
Thus we find eight or nine names on the Lincoln coins
of the Confessor and four or five on those of the Conqueror
which can with every probability be identified in the
respective lists of lagemen recorded in Domesday. The
coincidences are too numerous to be accidental, and when
it is explained that the notes of the "William coins from
which this comparison is drawn are as yet incomplete, the
fact would appear to be established that certain of the
lagemen held the ofiice of King's moneyers at Lincoln.
Mr. Grueber has always contended that the moneyers
were men of considerable status and wealth, and that " the
right of coining was farmed out to them " (Brit. Mm.
Cat., II, civ.). But this identification must place them
amongst those who were only secondary in importance to
the territorial lords and proves that a royal mint but a
royal mint only was farmed by the King to certain of
the principal freemen of the district, who held it on much
the same terms as a lord held a manor. They in turn
would either farm it to the actual strikers of the coins or
employ artisans, as authorised by the laws of Ethelred II
(see page 278), to take, over the burden and responsibilities
266 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
of the office. So we may take it that the mint of Lincoln
was from time to time farmed amongst certain of the
twelve tenants in capite of the Crown, just as a city was
farmed to its sheriff, and they were allowed to turn it to
the best profit they could. Their names appeared on the
coins as a voucher for their quality, but, as in the case of
a sheriff, a fine was no doubt the extent of their liability,
for their underlings would bear the penalty of fraud.
There was therefore no objection to either a priest or a
baron accepting the office. Peter de Yalonges was a
sheriff and probably all the lagemen were of nearly equal
rank, but it must be remembered that human nature was
much the same, even in those days, and the title monetarius
would only be assumed by those who held no higher
position in their own right.
Arguing in a circle, we will now prove that a King's
moneyer must have been in a position equal to that of
Peter de Valonges and his brother lagemen of Lincoln.
How otherwise could God wine, King William's moneyer of
London, grant to Malmesbury Abbey in 1084 the Church
of St. Nicholas, with lands which he and Theodric the
moneyer held (the " GODPINE " and "DIDKIE" on our
coins, see page 280) ; or Wulfric of Sudbury (see page
413), whom Henry I calls " my moneyer," grant the
Church of St. Bartholomew at Sudbury to Westminster
Abbey; or Geldewine (" 6ELDEPINE" on the coins), the
Confessor's moneyer at Canterbury, grant his house to
the see of Rochester (see page 382) ?
Having thus demonstrated the great difference between
the constitution of a King's mint and that of the usual
and intermittent baronial mints of lesser importance, it
follows that there was nothing in the former class to
prevent a constant issue of the currency, type after type.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGX OF HEXRY I. 267
Hence, when we refer to our coins of Lincoln, issued duriuo-
the reigns of the two Williams, we find that from the
time when the city fell into the Norman King's hands
every type is represented upon them.
During the reign of Henry I, similar conditions
prevailed, and out of the fifteen types issued by him
eleven are in evidence in our cabinets. Those missing are
253 (1104-1106), 256 (1108-1110), 267 and 266 (1112-
1116). Perhaps they may yet be forthcoming.
It will be noticed that about the middle of the reign an
attempt is made to change the old Saxon name of the city
from LINCOLNE to NICOLE. This attempt was not
confined to the coins alone, for we find the latter form
competing with its Saxon predecessor in deeds and records
until late in the fifteenth century. Any explanation for
this seems to have baffled the ingenuity of historians and
numismatists alike, and the only one suggested has been
that of the difficulty of pronunciation of the word, a
suggestion reflecting unfairly upon the linguistic powers
of our Norman forefathers. There is no effect without a
cause, and the cause in this instance is as simple as to
our practical minds amusing. A passage in Henry of
Huntingdon ought to have solved the problem. It is
" In the twelfth year of King Stephen he wore his crown during
Christmas at Lincoln, which no [Norman ?] King, from some
superstitious feeling, had before ventured to do. This showed
the great resolution of King Stephen, and how little importance
he attached to such superstitions."
To hold the King's Court at a city was naturally a
great benefit to it, and so it was a hardship upon Lincoln
that it was debarred from the honour and profit of such an
occasion. Even Huntingdon refrains from offering any
explanation, for, to him, it was no doubt obvious, but wheu
268 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE
we find the Norman Kings refusing to visit the city and
at the same time the citizens themselves, through their
moneyers, endeavouring to change its name, suspicion falls
on the name itself. No wonder the superstitious Norman
objected to wear his crown in the city which in his own
tongue was Linceul the shroud of death.
Turning to the 1130 Pipe Roll we notice several items
of interest. " Gerard de Grimsby " (who is styled mone-
tarius in the 1156 Roll, and may possibly have come from
Bristol, see p. 126) and " Godric de Grimsby," " Gerard
de Limber " and (under Rutland, probably because of
their possessions in that county) "Elwi and Shipman,"
are mentioned as having to account for certain fees on a
treasury plea. They were probably the royal moneyers of
the city or those responsible for the Jinna of its mint : G od-
ric's name appears on type 262 (1128-1131), andElwi's on
type 255 (1131-1135). Siwat de Holland, who is fined on
a plea of false coining, is no doubt the SPET whose name
is on types 265 and 262 (1126-1131), but then, as a
matter of course, disappears. In the case of Osbertus
Palmarius, who "accounts for 15 marks of silver for
Toch, the false coiner who absconded," we have also
ample grounds for identification. The former is clearly
the OSBEKTVS who coined on type 255 (1131-1135), and
therefore he must have succeeded Tocb, whose name TOE
disappears with type IV (1121-1123). Toch would be
one of the " 94 " moneyers who were summoned to Win-
chester for the Great Inquisition of Christmas, 1125 (see
p. 81), but he perhaps wisely fled. He would be fined
and outlawed, and so in 1129-30 his office was probably
purchased by Osbertus at the price of his outstanding fine
of 20 marks of silver. Hence, in the following year,
Osbertus commences his coinage with the new type.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 269
That the mint maintained its royal character in 1157 is
proved by the entry in the Pipe Roll for that year : " the
moneyers of Lincoln account for 220," an enormous
amount at that time. It was continued until the reign
of Edward II, perhaps even later, and its actual site was
probably near the New Port Gate, where some ancient
remains are still known as " the Mint Wall " (see under
London, the reasons for believing that the royal mints
were stationed at the gates of the City, p. 278).
COINS.
.&AH6EMVN) ON LIN .frHNEIEVS El 251
T. Bliss. From the Walpole-White and
Montagu, 1897, collections, and perhaps the
Warren Sale, 1869, described as " found
at Ixworth." As to this money er, see before.
*^LWI : ON : NIEOLE *riENEIEVS 255
Royal Mint ; Sheriff Mackenzie.
.J.ELWI : ON tiEN . . . VS 255
Watford find. As to this moneyer, see before.
ft
.f.[AE]EIL ON LIN . HENEI EEX 251
Bodleian Library. As to this moneyer, see
before.
* . AML ON LINEOL 252
Webb Sale, 1895. Probably an error for Arcil.
... El . ON LINE . IxENEIE EEX 263
J. Murdoch. From the Marsham, 1888, and
Montagu, 1896, Sales.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. N N
270 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
*ARN[E]I[L] 0[N N]IC[OL]E *I\EN ..... 255
Watford find. Arcil and Arncil were indif-
ferently used on Saxon coins.
.frAENCI ON NICOLE : ^.IiEN ..... 255
Captain R. J. H. Douglas. Captain Douglas
has, for many years, assisted this work by
furnishing readings of coins.
4.ASLADE ON : NIEOL : .frhENEIEVS 255
Specimens, Dr. M. Perry, J. Verity. Aslade
continued to coin in Stephen's reign.
^ASLAED : ON : NIGOL ^hENEIEVS 256
Specimens, Watford find 3 ; L. A. Lawrence ;
W. J. Andrew. As to the 6 see p. 97.
*BEVMAN ON LIN ^HENEI REX AN 251
Christmas Sale, 1864, 3 5s.
frBEVNMAN : ON [LI]NE ^hENEIEVS 256
British Museum. This moneyer was probably
a son of the above.
.frBEVNMAN ON ... * . . EIEVS 256
Watford find, 2 specimens ; Eoyal Mint col-
lection.
i-EDMVND : ON : LIN *hENEIEVS E 255
Engraved, Withy and Ryall, ii., 22, and
Snelling, L, 24. An Edmund coined here
for the Confessor.
4-60DEIE ON LINE .frHENEI El 254
B. Roth. From the Brice and Montagu, 1896,
4 15s. Od., collections.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 271
*60DE[IE 0]N NIEOL : *IxE . . IEVS . . 264
British Museum. From the Bergne, 1873,
3 8s., Simpson-Rostron, 1892, 8, and
Montagu, 1896, 2 18s., Sales.
[*GOD]RIEVS ON .J.LIEOLEN : ____ EE IAS
British Museum. Fig. E, p. 76. PI. VI,
No. 2. Engraved, Rud. Sup. ii., 2. 12.
From the Eoberts collection. Obverse,
two quatrefoils before the sceptre. The
moneyer's name is far from distinct.
4.6[ODEIEJ 0[N] *N[IEOL]E: ...... 283
British Museum. A halfpenny. PI. VI, No. 9.
The letters within the brackets are merely
conjectural.
*60DEI[E] ON NIEOL . . . NEIEVS E 263
Watford find. As to this moneyer, see before.
4.GODEIEVS . N NIEOL .frhENEIEVS 286
J. Verity. Probably from the Borrell Sale,
1848, though then read " Henricus."
*LEFEIE [ON] NICOLE : .frhENEIE . . 265
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton.
aar
Bari find. The description is .frNVhEED ON
I A, but we have the curious name VHEED
on a Lincoln coin of Canute. See the next
coin.
272 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
O]NV[fxE]RDO[>]NLIN 258
Sir John Evans. PI. VI, No. 6. Obverse, two
quatrefoils before the sceptre. The letters
in brackets are, of course, unreliable.
^.OSBERTVS ON LIN 255
Cotton Sale, 1889. As to this moneyer, see
before. A Richard Fitz Osbert, probably
his son, held a fief from Earl Bigod in 1165.
frOSBERTVS ON: LII .J-IiENRIE : 255
Lincoln and Son. An unusual obv. legend.
*OSBIRI\T ON LIN 255
Belt Sale, 1892 (corrected).
frRIEARD ON LINE ^HENRI REX A 251
Engraved Withy and Ryall, ii., 2. Corrected,
but the Lombardic ft on the obverse and
the colon on the reverse prove the engraver's
reading to be unreliable.
ON LINEOLN 265
The Christmas, 1864, and "Lady in the North,"
1873, Sales. As to this moneyer, see before.
frSPET ON NIE . . . . ENEIEVS 262
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton.
*,[SPE]T : ON : NI[EO]LE * . EN ... V . 262
A. A. Banes. Obverse, a larger head than
usual.
J.TOE ON LIEOLEN : * hENEIE VS EEX AN IV
Major H. W. Morrieson. Some previous
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 273
owner has attempted to alter TOE into TOMAS.
As to this moneyer,see before. Major Morrieson
has contributed many readings to these lists.
The similarities of the names LIN to LVN and
NIEOLE to EOLE (Colchester) have caused
much confusion in catalogue attributions.
LONDON AND SOUTHWARK.
LUNDENCEASTEK, LuNDENE, LuDENE, LtJNDONIUM, LUNDONE,
LUNDINIUM ; Domesday, LUNDONIA ; Pipe Roll, LONDONIA.
SUTHGEWEBE, SlJTHWERCHA, SuDOVERCA J Domesday, StJDWER-
CHE ; Pipe Roll, SVDWERCHA.
In the days when our history was without form and
void, the earthworks of London already enclosed a
Celtic city. The lines of these fortifications were to
some extent adopted by the Roman conquerors for their
walls, and thus from time immemorial the site of the City
of London has never been varied. Tacitus speaks of
London in the days of Nero in much the same terms as
we describe it to-day, viz., as the chief resort of merchants
and a great concourse of trade. To the holy Bede it was
"a princely mart town," and when Ethelbert of Kent
founded the ancient church of St. Paul the city was even
then " the emporium of a vast number of nations who
resorted thither by sea and by land." In the ninth century
it was more than once devastated by the Danes, but King
Alfred " honourably rebuilt the city and made it again
habitable," and afterwards, in the words of the Saxon
Chronicler, " oft they fought against the City of London,
but praise be to God that it yet stands sound ; and they
there ever met with ill fare."
274 KUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1086. Domesday notes. It is curious that the survey of
London is entirely omitted from the Roll. Possibly
some similar record was already in existence which
formed the model for the general inquisition, but
which, being separate, has been lost. If one may
venture an opinion on so hypothetical a subject, it is,
that the returns for London, though containing larger
figures, would have been very similar in their details
to those of Lincoln.
Southwark. King Edward held South wark to the
day of his death. Whosoever held the church held it
of the King. Of the harbour dues the King had two
parts and Earl Godwin the third. The men of the
Hundred, both Normans and English, testify that the
Bishop of Bayeux might have entered a plea with
Eanulf the Sheriff concerning these. But he, un-
derstanding that the plea did not lend itself favour-
ably to the judgment of the King, dropped it. He
has a monastery and a wharf. But he gave the
church and the wharf, first to Adelold, and, since,
to Radulf in exchange for a house [? his episcopal
palace]. The Sheriff, however, denied that he had
ever received the King's confirmation or seal in this
business. The men of Southwark testify that in the
time of King Edward no one took toll either on the
strand or on the river-bank except the King. What
the King has in Southwark is valued at 16.
1100. August. Henry is elected King at London and
crowned at Westminster, when he grants his coronation
charter. (Wendover.)
Ranulf, Bishop of Durham, is committed to the
Tower, its earliest state prisoner. (Orderic.)
1101. The romantic escape of Bishop Ranulf. (Orderic.)
1106. Southwark. An order of canons is established at
St. Mary Overies [i.e., over ree river]. (West-
minster.)
1107. Death of Maurice, Bishop of London.
1108. Richard de Beaumais is consecrated Bishop " at
his chapel at Peckham." (Florence.) " He zealously
exerted himself in the construction of the new cathe-
dral which had been commenced by his predecessor,
and he nearly completed the work." (Orderic.)
1109. Envoys " of great stature" attend Henry's Whit-
suntide Court at London to negotiate the future mar-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 275
riage of the Princess Matilda with their Emperor,
Henry V. of Germany. (Huntingdon.)
1114. October 10. The Thames is fordable " between
the bridge and the Royal Tower, even under the
bridge." (Florence. This was the old wooden bridge
which preceded the stone structure, commenced in
1176.)
1118. Matilda, Queen of England, died at Westminster
on the 1st of May, and was interred with due cere-
mony in that monastery. (Florence.)
1123. The church of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, is
founded " in the suburbs of London." (Westminster.)
1127. January 1. The first oath of fealty to the Empress
Matilda, as successor to the crown, is sworn by the
barons at the London court. (Continuator of Florence.)
1128. Death of Bishop Richard.
1129. Januar) 7 22. Gilbert "the Universal" is conse-
crated Bishop. (Continuator of Florence.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. London. Fulchred Fitz Walter
accounts, apparently as a former sheriff, for the arrears
of the previous year's firma. But now four sheriffs
account for the firma, which, including payments,
amounts to 536 10s. lO^d., but as the accounts are
in payments, partly by number and partly blanched,
it was probably 800 marks = 533 6s. 8d. These
paym^jts include the cost of the Tower garrison, of
the obsequies at Queen Matilda's tomb, of building
two arches to London Bridge, of work at the Tower
(probably construction of the curtain wall), of repairs
to the houses which were Otver's and the chapel,
and an allowance of " 3 Os. lOd. to the aurifabri of
London for charcoal." The tolls of the market and
the guild of the cloth weavers are mentioned. The
references to William Fitz Otho, aurifaber, and Wyzo
Fitz Leofstan, have already been given on pages 40
and 87. " Godwin Quachehand owes four marks of
gold that he might have peace from a monetary plea."
" Algar and Spracheling owe ten marks of silver for a
conviction of false pennies." " The men of London
account for 100 marks of silver that they may have a
sheriff of their own election."
Southwark. The burg pays 7s. 6d., 14s. 2d., and
1 4s. in auxilium.
1132. "On the llth of April the City of London was
almost entirely destroyed by fire." (Westminster.)
276 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1135. "The Church of St. Paul was burnt by a fire
which began at London Bridge and extended as far as
the Church of the Danes." (Westminster. Possibly
a repetition of the previous record.)
The mint of London may claim to be the oldest existing
public institution of any description in the Kingdom. Its
origin dates from the introduction of coinage into this
country when the government itself was still under tribal
divisions. It was in operation under the Romans, and
from their day to this, with the exception of a very few
intermittent periods, whenever money has been issued in
England it has provided its share of the output, and of
late years has supplied the whole demand.
For more than two thousand years its moneyers have
practised their art within a comparatively few yards of
its present site, and, with the exception perhaps of the flint
workers of Brandon, whose occupation has survived from
neolithic times, they thus carry on the oldest-established
business in England. During the whole of this long
period of time the Mint of London has always remained a
royal mint, and it was not until the year 1869 that the
office of Master or Moneyer of the Mint was merged in
that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That it was a
royal mint and under the immediate control of the
Sovereign is hardly needful of proof, but in the absence
of any evidence in Domesdaj 7 it may be pointed out that
all the charters of Henry II, Richard I, John and
Henry III confirming the City of London to the citizens,
excepted from the privilege that no citizen should be
required to plead without the walls of the City "my
moneyers and officers." From the first coinage of William
the Conqueror to the last coinage of Henry I no tj'pe is
absent from our series of the London mint.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 277
The mint of Southwark, however, was not established
until the reign of Ethelred II, and was only continued
to that of Stephen, although revived for a short period
under the Tudors. It was also a royal mint, and it is
possible that the ancient privileges of freedom from arrest
within its precincts, which were not finally abolished
until the Act of 1 George IV, were a survival of that
status. It will be noticed that the two mints of London
and Southwark are here, for the first time, classed together
under one heading, and the reason for it is, that they were
worked together jointly by the same royal moneyers and
under one administration ; for the mint of Southwark
was an appendage to the mint of London. It is curious
that^no one seems to have called attention to the fact that
all the names and they are Legion of the Southwark
moneyers of every reign during its existence appear on
the contemporary coins of London. If, indeed, there are
any exceptions to this rule, the answer must be that our
coinage to-day is not necessarily complete so far as all the
names of the London moneyers are concerned. But, as
the London series of types is usually an almost complete
series, and much more so than that of Southwark, it
follows that coinage at the latter place was of minor
importance.
Ethelred II, who seems to have originated and appended
the Southwark mint to London, probably did so at the
same time that he proclaimed certain laws which had for
their object the benefit of the Londoners by a betterment
of the coinage. They are headed De Inatitutis Lundonie,
and are given with the various readings in The Ancient
Laws and Institutions of England, Ed. Thorpe, 1840.
These laws, to which my attention has been drawn by
Mr. Frederick Spicer, have been handed down to us
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. O O
278 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
in, unfortunately, a very corrupt and disjointed form. They
are addressed to the King's Officers of the City Gates, and
concern the regulations to be observed at the gates in
particular, at Aldersgate, Cripplesgate, and Billingsgate.
There are several copies extant in their entirety of these
" Institutes," but as Bromton, who is followed by Ruding,
vol. i. p. 133, includes some of the paragraphs in the
general ordinances decreed at Wantage, omitting, however,
all the special references to London, it is quite possible
that such clauses were then re-enacted in the public laws
for the country. But the remaining authorities are
headed and addressed as above, and when the word portus,
which seems to be used indifferently with poria throughout,
is given its twelfth-century meaning of a city gate see
Du Cange just as we, conversely, find gate used for
port in Ramsgate, &c., the whole reads intelligibly and
throws new light on the then system of a royal mint.
The Institutes provide for the punishment of those who
forged, circulated, or connived at impure money, or who
tested (and so injured) good money, and thpy hold the
Officers of the Gates, ipsi qui portus custodiunt (in which the
money was coined), responsible for its weight and quality.
But the most important clause provides that there should
be three moneyers in each of the principal gates, in omni
summo portu, and one in each of the others, who might
have subordinates under them. The gates at that time
were no doubt the principal public or royal buildings
in the city, and the three referred to above were probably
the principal gates, so, by adding one each for Aldgate,
Ludgate, and Dowgate, there would be twelve moneyers
at London, which agrees very fairly with the apparent
number of moneyers upon our London coins of Ethelred II
and his immediate successor. The institution of royal
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 279
moneyers in the gates of a city was not only convenient as
providing places of exchange for the merchants on entering
it, but it brought the moneyers under the direct super-
vision of the King's officer in charge of the defence of the
walls the later castellan of Norman times who, unless
he could clear himself " by oath or the triple ordeal," was
to be held responsible equally with the money er for the
purity of the coinage. Under Nottingham and Oxford,
for instance, we shall see that moneyers were referred to
as "de porta " or " juxta murum," and when cities and
towns were mainly defended by earthen ramparts, the
gates, no doubt, served for all public or royal purposes
" ifnto the elders of the city in the gate." Deut. 22, 15.
Turning to Domesday we find that the King f through
his sheriff, claimed the town of Southwark as a royal
demesne, and such it remained until Edward III farmed
" the village of Southwark to the citizens of London
at the same firma as was theretofore accustomed to be
paid by it" (Charters of the City of London, 1738, p.
36). If the Southwark mint was appended to London,
as there can be no doubt it was, it follows that its firma
would be included in the London returns, and not under
Southwark, in the Domesday Survey. Hence the mint is
not mentioned. There is nothing unusual in this, for, as
explained on pages 160-162, the JVlaldon mint was simi-
larly appendant to that of Colchester, and therefore its
firma is only mentioned under the latter heading, for
it was paid by the Colchester moneyers, and when no'
in use a proportionate reduction was allowed in their
firma. This explains the intermittent character of the
series of Norman types issued at both Maldon and
Southwark.
280 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
As London and Southwark were royal mints, it follows
that the moneyers were tenants in capite of the King, and
equal in status to those already described of the royal
mint at Lincoln. Before passing on to the coinage of
Henry I, one or two examples in support of this conten-
tion may be taken from the coins of William I and II.
The names of the moneyers Godwine, Theodric, and
Ewart, appear on the coins of London as 60DPINE,
DIDBIE, and EADPART. From a charter, given in the
Monasticon, and dated 1084, it appears that Godwine and
his wife Turund were the owners of the advowson of the
Church of St. Nicholas at London, and that Theodric
" the moneyer " held a half share in certain [? adjoining]
land, which Ewart the Aurifaber held. By the charter
the two former granted the church to Malmesbury Abbey
on condition that the abbot should admit them into his
church as [lay] members, and also pay 6 on Godwine's
behalf to Theodric for his share in the land.
We will now go a step further and endeavour to con-
struct at least one pedigree of a family of London
moneyers in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Der-
man of London holds half a hide of land at Islington,
which land Algar, "the man [? moneyer or officer] of
King Edward " held (Domesday). Derman had there-
fore succeeded, and was probably the son of Algar, and
both names appear on the London coins of the Confessor,
viz., as ALDGAR and DEORMAN. In 1086 Derman must
have been an old man, and so his sons would probably
have taken his place as King's moneyers. Mr. Round
tells us in the Commune of London, p. 106 :
"Tierri son of Deorman " [i.e. Theodric fitz Derman, who
witnessed a charter of 1137 quoted in Geoffrey de Mandeville's
Charter of 1144, p. 101] " was the heir, perhaps the son of that
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 281
' Derman of London ' who is entered in Domesday as holding
half a hide at Islington, and the father of Bertram ' filius Theo-
dorici filii Derman,' otherwise Bertram ' de Barwe,' who held
Newington Barrow in Islington."
Although Tierri fitz Derman was the heir of Derman of
Islington, we shall see presently that there must have been
two generations between the two Dermans. The later coin-
cidence of the names Theodoric, son of Derman, suggests
that "Theodric the moneyer" of the 1084 charter to
Malmesbury Abbey, referred to above, was the eon of
Derman of Islington, and that Godwine [de] Beare
(Barwe), one of the witnesses, was his brother. Theodric
was th'en coming for William I, and his name also ap-
pears on types 252 (1106-1108) and 267 (1112-1114) of
Henry I as DEODRIE, and the moneyer GODPINE, on
William's coinymd on type 251 (1100-1102) of Henry I,
was probably Godwine de Beare. Between the presumable
death of Theodric in 1114 and the first appearance of the
name of the second Derman there is a gap of seventeen
years. This is represented by the father of Derman, whose
name, as we shall presently see, must have been Richard,
but who does not appear to have been a moneyer. On
type 255 (1131-1135) the name of DERMAN, variously
spelt, is one of the most frequent moneyers, and it is
often followed by the letters R, RE, or El, e.g. " +DER-
MAN : RI : ON LV." This, as his son's coins will prove,
can only stand for " Derman [fitz] Hi [card]." Derman
continued to coin during the first type only of Stephen's
reign. On the second type of that reign his son Tierri's
name first appears, and it is similarly followed by the
letter " D," e.g. " +TIERRI : D : ON : LVN " for Tierri
[fitz] D[erman]. He continued to coin throughout the
reign and into that of Henry II.
282 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Tierri, in his turn, is followed in the reign of John by
frWILLQXM : T : ON : LV (for William [fitz] T[ierri]), and
thus we have a very simple explanation of the mysterious
letters which so frequently follow the names of the
moneyers in the " short-cross " series, and which usually
correspond with the initials of previous moneyers' names.
A custom which seems to have been introduced on type
255 of Henry I. Surely no doubt can remain that
TIEREI : D ' on the coins of Stephen represented the
Tierricus fitz Derman of London, who is mentioned in
the 1130 Pipe Roll as receiving an allowance of 20s. 6d.
from the King's revenue, and the Tierri fitz Derman who
witnessed the 1144 charter at London, and a charter of
John fitz Andrew in the Colchester cartulary (Commune
of London, 112)?
As we have seen that the majority, at least, of the
lagemen of Lincoln were royal moneyers, so whenever
we find a charter which, owing to its civic character, was
witnessed by the leading citizens of London, we should
expect to find a proportion, at least, of its witnesses iden-
tifiable as moneyers on the contemporary coins.
Several comparisons of this description will be drawn
in the following list of coins, and many more would be
forthcoming if the enquiry which is a subject worthy of
separate research were pursued ; and amongst them we
shall find some reason to suspect that Gilbert Beket, the
father of the famous archbishop, at one time held the
office of royal moneyer.
In 1130 the Pipe Roll records two entries concerning
London moneyers. Godwin Quachehand owes four marks
of gold for his pardon on a monetary plea, probably re-
ferring to arrears due to the Crown of his firma for the
mint. This is the Godwine of types 262 and 255 (1128-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 283
1135), for, having received " his peace," it would not act
as a forfeiture of his office. Mr. Verity has a coin of his
reading 4-GODPINE GV : probably in this instance for
GVAEI\EI\AND, not fitz Guillelm, which, if so, is especi-
ally interesting, as not only being an early instance of a
contracted surname, but showing that the Saxon custom
of using 6 for Q was still continued. This custom seems
to have been maintained throughout our coinage until
after the reign of Henry III.
" Algar and Spracheling owe ten marks of silver for a
convictidn of fa^se pennies." In this we have an instance
of the punishment accorded to fraudulent moneyerg it is
only the financial record, for the bodily penalty did not
concern the Exchequer. It of course operated as an
estopel of their office, and although we find both names
on most of the types from the commencement of the reign
and, at this period, Algar's on types IV, 258, 265, and
262 (1121 to 1129-1131), and Spracheling's (as SPEE-
LING) on IV (1121-1123) and 265 (1126-1128), they both
now disappear from our regal coinage. "Whether these
two moneyers passed under the hands of the public exe-
cutioner and suffered the dreadful penalty of maiming, as
probably they did, the Exchequer record does not tell us ;
but if they did, we do know that Algar survived it. Some
years ago a few ancient forgeries were discovered, and
subsequently passed into the cabinet of Mr. L. A. Law-
rence. They are five in number, and all from the same
dies namely, of the obverse of Stephen's first type and of
the reverse of type 255 (1131-1135). The forgeries
themselves are of copper thinly plated with silver, and
although no single coin is readable perhaps pur-
posely so when classed together the reverse legend is
* ALGAE : ON : LYN. They are the relics of a loug-for-
284 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
gotten story of crime, and they picture the maimed and
disgraced Algar taking advantage of the public disorder
upon the accession of Stephen to eke out a miserable
existence by the last resort of a fallen moneyer, a resort
as debased as his own forgeries.
We now come to a striking illustration of the light
which the dumb records of our coins may throw upon
controversial matters of history. Until Mr. Round pub-
lished Geoffrey de Manderille, the very foundation charter
of London's civic rights was antedated some thirty
years and arbitrarily given to the year 1101 ; but
Mr. Round, with his usual accurate reasoning, finally
demonstrated that it could not have been in existence
prior to the Pipe Roll, and therefore its date must have
been " between 1130 and 1135." We shall now see that
its specific date was in 1130 or before Michaelmas 1131.
The entry in the Pipe Roll of that year that " the men of
London account for 100 marks of silver that they may
have a sheriff of their own election," is not conclusive, as
the contracted Latin form vie may stand either in the
plural for the four sheriffs under the old regime or in the
singular for the sole sheriff allowed under the charter, but
in view of the evidence forthcoming from the charter
itself it most likely represents the fee payable for the new
charter. Amongst the privileges it grants is this: "the
citizens shall not plead without the walls upon any plea."
Now it is quite clear that the effect of that clause must have
operated to the King's disadvantage in some unforeseen
manner, for when Henry II, Richard, John and Henry III
confirm the charter they are all careful to add to the
clause the exception of " my moneyers and officers." The
charter granted to the citizens the right " to hold
Middlesex to farm for 300 upon account to them and
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 285
their heirs, so that the said citizens shall place as sheriff
whom they will of themselves, and shall place whomso-
ever, or such one as they will of themselves, for keeping
of the pleas of the Crown and of the pleading of the same,
and none other shall be justice over the same men of
London " (Charters of the City of London). The effect
of this was that, as the sheriff of the citizens had the
same powers as the former royal sheriffs had, he would
collect the firma of the King's moneyers, and yet all he
had to pay to the King was a total annual rent of 300.
Moreover, having paid their pleas to the sheriff, the King
could not call on the moneyers to plead for the firma of
their mint to him, for as citizens of London they could
not be called upon to plead outside their walls. So,
as was probably intended, the citizens by the charter
became possessed of their own mint. But they were not
satisfied with the spirit of the charter, for it could never
have been intended to grant them the royal mint of
Southwark also and yet they astutely availed themselves
of the letter of the charter to secure to themselves the
profits of that mint as well. We have seen that the
Southwark mint was appended to that of London and
farmed by the London moneyers, yet the King, if in-
deed he ever gave it a thought, would naturally pre-
sume that as the mint was outside the county of Middle-
sex, its moneyers would necessarily be under his own
jurisdiction and he could, of course, call upon them to plead
for their firma. But it immediately occurred to the
citizens that if they closed the mint of Southwark, so
much the more money would be in demand from their
own mint and its profits would be correspondingly in-
creased. They had no right to close the mint but under
the wording of their charter what could the King do ?
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. r p
286 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
If he called on the Southwark moneyers to plead why
they should not pay their firma notwithstanding that the
mint was closed, their answer was that the charter
privileged them as citizens of London only to plead to
their own sheriff and within their walls. So, at or before
Michaelmas, 1131, the citizens closed the Southwark
mint and kept it closed until some time in the following
reign of Stephen. If this statement is correct, it follows
that the date of the charter must be either in the current
year of the Pipe Roll (Michaelmas, 1129 Michaelmas,
1130), but not yet in operation, or before Michaelmas,
1131, when the Southwark mint was certainly closed.
The evidence is strong, for up to and including type 262
(1128-1131, Michaelmas) the mint of Southwark had
been one of the most prolific in the country. The next
type is 255 (1131-1135), of which altogether more than
600 specimens have been noted, or about two-thirds of
the total of the known coins of Henry I, and yet though
hundreds are of London, not a single example bears the
name of Southwark ! Moreover, the names of the South-
wark moneyers who coined on type 262, with the exception
of that of the convicted Algar, now appear at London
on 255. Therefore we may safely say that coinage at
Southwark was discontinued during the whole period
of issue of the type. But that is not all ; if the
citizens of London closed the mint of Southwark, it neces-
sitated their making provision for the necessarily corres-
ponding increase in the output of their own mint, and
no doubt many of them would covet the emoluments of
the office of moneyer, so this is what we find. In the
previous type 262 (1128-1131) the royal moneyers of
London numbered eight, but now, in type 255 (1131-1135)
including those transferred from Soutl.wark, there are no
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGX OF HENRY 1. 287
fewer than twenty, which is probably the exact limit in
number arranged by the citizens. . No wonder Henry II
and his successors excepted their own money ers and
officers [of the mint] from the privilege of only having
" to plead within the walls of the city " !
COINS.
See under Reading, pages 273-277.
HELFPINE ON LVND .frHNRIEVS REI 251
Bodleian Library. The IE = JE for JSlfwine,
which name appears on London coins from
the time of Ethelred II.
frlELFPINE ON LVN .J.HNRI REX NL 251
Capt. B. J. H. Douglas. PI. II, No. 2.
,frIELFPI>E ON LIIN *HNRI REX 251
British Museum. From the Tyssen Sale, 1802.
J.IELFPINE LVND ^HNRIEVS REI 251
J. Verity. From the Webb Sale, 1895.
frlELFPINE LVND *HNRIEVS REI 251
British Museum. From the Bank of England
collection.
ONjVN) * HENRI REX 264
L.A.Lawrence. 19 grs. From the Bateman
Sale, 1893, and probably Whitbourn, 1869,
288 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
and Moore, 1858, Sales ; T. Bearman, from
the Boyne Sale, 1896, and Sale, March, 1886.
.J.IELFPINE LVND * HENRI REX 254
B. Roth. From the Montagu, 1897, 3, and
Marsham, 1888, Sales.
.J.IELFPI1SE OISLIII * HENRI REI 254
British Museum, fig. B, page 45.
frlELFPINE ON.VN) .frHENRI REX 253
L. A. Lawrence. 20 grs.
4.IELFPINE ON LVN * HENRI REX 253
L. A. Lawrence. Probably from the Dymock
Sale, 1841.
4.IELFPINE 5N.II * HENRI REX I 253
British Museum. Probably from the Tyssen
Sale.
ON-II * HENRI R . . 253
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
J.IELFPINE ON LV 252
Sale at Edinburgh, 1884.
^ALFPINE : ON : SVT ^IiENRI REX 256
Engraved Snelling, i. , 20. But it may be the
coin now read LEFPINE, &c.
A. NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY 1. 289
J.ALFPINE ON LVND 207
Barifind.
frELFPINE ON LVNDE 267
Bari find.
frALFPINE ON LVND : ifrliENBI RE 266
L. A. Lawrence. 17 grs. Found at Bedford.
Fig. K,. page 65.
..... ON LVNDO -frhENRI EEX 263
British Museum. PL V, No. 4. Engraved
Snelling, i., 18, and Ruding, Sup., L, 10;
but Bee page 72. As to the moneyer, see
page 201.
. . FPINE ON: LVN .frhENRI REX 263
Engraved Ruding, Sup., II., i., 7.
LFP1>E . . ^.LVNDENE . . NR . . 258
J Murdoch. PL VI, No. 1. From the
Marsham, 1888, 10 10s. Od., Simpson
Rostron, 1892, 8 17s. 6d., and Montagu,
1896, 8, Sales. Obverse, two quatrefoils
before the sceptre. Reverse, .J.LVNDENE
in the inner circle. To the above pedigree
the Wigan and Cuff collections have been
usually added, but Mr. Cuff had only one
specimen of the type and that a Southwark
coin. But as this is identical with the des-
cription given by the Rev. R. F. Whistler,
Num. Chron. II., xiii., 175, of a coin from
the Battle find of 1860, it may be accepted
as the same. The moneyer has hitherto been
assumed to be [PV]LFPINE, but as " ON "
must fill one of the two blank segments of
space between the outer ornaments, there
290 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
would be little room for iPV in the other.
Moreover, we do not know that a Wulfwine
coined between 1121 and 1131, whereas
Alfwine's types represent almost a complete
series of the reign.
. . FPI . . *ON LVND hENE 258
British Museum. PI. VI, No. 3. Engraved
Euding, Sup. II., 2, No. 13 (but the H in
the obverse legend should be h). From the
Roberts, and, probably, Tyssen, 1802, col-
lections. Obverse, five small annulets between
the head and sceptre and a broken annulet on
the outline of the nose ; but these are no
doubt disjointed portions of the usual quatre-
foils artlessly crammed in for want of space.
Reverse, ^<ON LVND in the inner circle.
frALFPINE: .. LVND: * hENEIEVS E : 265
British Museum. EngraVed Hawkins, 265,
and, probably, Withy and Ryall, ii., 21.
From the Trattle collection.
frALFPINE : ON : SVDPEE *I\ENEIEVS E 262
Watford find ; Milford Haven find ; N. Hey-
wood ; Lincoln and Son.
^ALFPINE ON LVN .frhENEIEVS: 255
Nottingham Castle, from the Nottingham find ;
Watford find.
^ALFPINE ON LVND EVS 255
Watford find, 2 specimens. Alfwine continued^
to coin in Stephen's reign. He was, perhaps,
the Ailwinus fitz Eadumf [Ralph], citizen of
London, of 1187 (Commune of London, 100).
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 291
.IEEDRRIHL ON LVI 254
Cuff Sale, 1854, 2 16s. Probably a misread-
ing or blunder for ^DEODRIE.
. AILEINL ON LVN 252
Beowell Sale, 1849. Probably ALFPINE.
* ALGAE OMTVND * HENRI REX 251
Spink and Son. The moneyer had coined at
South wark for Rufus.
J.AL6AR ON LVNDN .J. HNRI REX M, 251
British Museum. Fig. A, page 42. Engraved
Snelling, i., 13, and Hawkins, 251.
^ALGAR ONLVN) * HENRI REX 254
Spink and Son. PI. II, No. 6.
* ALGAE ON LVND . HENRI RE 254
Bodleian Library.
fr ALGAE ON LVND : *I\ENRI RE : 252
Sir John Evans; P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton.
PL III, No. 1 ; Fitz-William Museum, Cam-
bridge ; Allen Sale, 1898 ; the latter two are
from the Shillington find.
41 ALGAE ON L . . DE ifrliE.E. .. 252
L. A. Lawrence. 20 grs.
* ALGAE OH.VH *fiElSEI REX 267
L.A.Lawrence. 20$ grs. PI. Ill, No. 7.
From the Allen Sale, 1898.
292 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
*AL6I\EE : ON . LVND : 267
Bari find.
* ALGAE : ON : LVND .frhENRI EEX AN IV
L. A. Lawrence, 18| grs.; W. J. Andrew ;
J. Young, Leicester; Wakeford Sale, 1879.
* ALGAE ON SVTPVE I\EN . . 258
Montagu Sale, 1896, 8 5s. From the Cuff,
1851, 5 2s. 6d., Wigan, Neck and Webb,
1894, 9, collections. Found at St. Albans.
Obverse, between the head and sceptre four
annulets joined, no doubt representing one of
the quatrefoils. Sketched by Mr. Cuff in
his, now Mr. Webster's, copy of Ruding.
.fr ALGAE : ON : LVNDE : *I\ENEIEVS E 265
J. Murdoch. PI. VI, No. 11. Probably the
coin engraved Withy and Ryall, ii., 19.
* ALGAE : ON LVNDE ^hENEIEVS E : 265
Bodleian Library.
* ALGAE ON LVNDENE: *hENEIEVS E 262
Watford find. As to this moneyer, see before.
* ALGAE ON LVNDEN: ^.hENEIEVS E 262
Waliord find, 8 specimens ; J. Verity ; Wake-
ford Sale, 1879, 2; Moon Sale, 1901.
* ALGAE : ON LVNDE .frhENEIEVS E 262
Bodleian Library.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 293
*AL6A[RON] SVDPER *hENRIEVS R 262
British Museum. From the Montagu Sale
1896, 5 7s. 6d.
.f-ALGAR : ON : SVDPE : *hENRIEVS R 262
W, J. Andrew. PI. VII, No. 1 From the
Milferd Haven find ; Watford find ; Lincoln
and Son.
J.AL6AR : ON : SVDPER : *hENRIEVS R 262
British Museum ; Capt. R. J. H. Douglas,
PI. VII, No. 7. P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton.
I.BALDEPIN : ON : LVN : ^.hENRiEvs 255
Watford find, 12 specimens ; F. A. Walters,
probably the Bergne coin ; Lincoln and Son.
[^.BALDJEPIN : $N : . . . .frhENRI : 255
Watford find. This form of the obverse legend
would seem not to occur on any other coin
of this type. See page 96.
J.BALDEP1NE ON LVN *hENRIEVS 255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; L. A. Lawrence,
probably from the Cureton Sale, 1859;
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton ; J. Verity.
frBALDEPINS ON : LVN : .frhENRIEVS : 255
Watford find. A, H. Sadd.
For other coins of this moneyer, see under
Reading, pages 377-78.
,J,BLAEEM[AN ONLJVN * HENRI BEX 254
G. Dealdn.
frBLAEAMAN OM.V .frhENRI RE 252
W. J. Andrew. PI. Ill, No. 2. This name
frequently occurs on Saxon coins, but not at
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. Q Q
294
NUMISMATIC CHROXICI,!-:.
London. Perhaps the family, like the
Smaewines, came here from Guildford when
that mint was discontinued. JBlacman Street,
Southwark, is mentioned in Edward VI's
charter to London.
*B[LA]EAMAN ON LV *hENRI RE : '262
British Museum.
VND .frhENRI RE 252
J. Verity. From the Allen Sale, 1898.
I.BLAEAMAN : ON L ^.I^ENRI REX 255
L. E. Bruun of Copenhagen.
frBLAEAPOAN ON LV *hENRI . . . ANGL IV
British Museum. As to the lettering see
page 73.
frBLAEAMAN ON L. ^hENRIEVS REX IV
Montagu Sale, 1897.
frBLA . MAN : ON L : ^hENRI . . . ANGL IV
British Museum.
i-BLAEMN : ON LV . DE hEM . . 2fi8
L. A. Lawrence. The unique variety of this
type described and illustrated, Fig. T, pages
82-3.
.frBLAEhEMAN : ON.VN : ^IiENRIEVS RE : 262
British Museum. Fig. V, page 89 ; Watford
find. Engraved Archceologia, xxi., 540.
frBLA ...... : ON : LVN ^.hENRIEVS R 2ttt
G. Hodges.
A. NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 295
.frBRIEhMAE ON: LVN .f-IiENRIEVS 255
Watford find, 8 specimens ; J. Verity ; A. H.
Sadd. As to this moneyer, see under Tam-
worth, page 419.
ONLV: ^IxENRIEVS 256
Watford find, 2 specimens ; A. H. Sadd.
MAR : ON : LVND *hENRIE . . 266
J. Verity. From the Boyne Sale, 1896.
.... ETMAR ON LVN 4-hENRIEVS 255
Watford find. 8 specimens. Brichmar con-
tinued to f-^in here in Stephen's reign.
^.BRHTPIN ON LV *HNRI REX N 251
C. M. Crompton-Roberts. From the Holmes,
1890, and Nunn, 1896, Sales. The Brihtwins
had coined here since Saxon times.
J.BRIHTPI ON LVN 261
Barter Sale.
4.BRANT O . LV . . *hENE .... 252
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. BIIENT occurs
here in the previous reign.
4.BEVNIE ON LVN ^.HNEIEV EE 251
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University. PL
II, No. 5. This moneyer had coined here
for the Williams, and the name occurs on
Saxon coins.
296
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
.frLEVNIE ON LVN
Brice Sale, 1881.
251
. . . IE ON LVN 252
Shillington find, 2 specimens ; Allen Sale, 1898.
frDEEEMAN El : ON : LVN .frhENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 9 specimens ; L. A. Lawrence ;
Lincoln and Son. As to this moneyer see
page 281.
J.DEEEMAN El ON LVND 255
Sale, January, 1860.
^DEEEMAN EE ON LVN
Late J. Toplis.
J.DEEEMAN El ON LV
British Museum.
frhENEIEVS 255
. . ENE . EVS :
255
*DEEMAN : El : ON LV *f\EN . IEVS 256
J. Verity.
^DEEEMAN : E ; ON LV *I\ENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; British Museum,
from Mr. Kashleigh ; F. A. Walters.
^.DEEEMAN E : ON : LVN *I\ENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 10 specimens ; Royal Mint col-
lection.
A NTMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 297
fr'DEEEMAN E : ON : LV : *I\ENEIEV 255
Royal Mint collection.
frDEEEMAMl: ON : LVN ^hENEIEVS : 255
W. tF. Andrew.
.... AMAM : ON LV NEIEVS : 255
British Museum.
*DEEMA>R : ON LVND .frh . . EIEVS 255
Watford find ; Nottingham Castle.
frDEEEMAN : ON : LVN *I\ENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 13 specimens ; Royal Mint col-
lection, 3 specimens; British Museum, from
the Banks collection ; Spink and Son ;
W. J. Andrew. There are numerous speci-
mens bearing this legend.
frDEEEMA . ON LVN *hENEIEV8 255
Sir John Evans ; L. A. Lawrence, 21 grs.
From Lord Londesborough's collection.
4-EDPINE ON ^.LVNDEN hENEI 258
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. PI. VIII, No. 10.
Obverse, between the head and sceptre two
quatrefoils. Reverse, .frLVNDEN in the
inner circle. EDPI occurs on London coins
of the Williams.
.frESTMIEE ON LVNI 251
Ferguson Sale, 1851.
298 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
J.EASTMVND : ON LVN 4-IiENRIEVS 265
Watford find, 4 specimens ; Christmas, 1864,
Boyne, 1896, Montagu, 1888, Sales.
*ESTMVND ON LVN .frhENRIEVS 255
Watford find, 6 specimens. Estmund con-
tinued to coin in Stephen's reign and was
probably the Estmund, citizen of London,
in the 1137 charter (Commune of London,
100). The name occurs on the Confessor's
coins of this mint.
4-ESTMVND ON LVN) -frhENRIEVS R 255
Watford find ; Pembroke Sale, 1848, 8 4s. Od.;
Bird Sale, 1854.
4-ESTMVND : ON : LVND : *h . NRIE . . 255
Royal Mint collection ; G. Deakin.
4.ESTMVN) : ON : LVN *hENR .... 255
British Museum. From Mr. Rashleigh.
*EST .... ON LVN *hENRIEV : 255
J. Verity.
4-6ILEBERD ON .VN 4-hENRIEVS 251
Watford find, 2 specimens. It is very possible
that the moneyer was the Gilbert Becket,
citizen of London and father of the Arch-
bishop, mentioned in the 1137 charter
(Commune of London, 101).
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 299
*6IL ..... ON . . ND 255
Kennard Sale, 1892. Said to b from the
Linton find.
*[6OD] RIE : ON [: SVDJPE .frhENR ..... 262
F. Spicer. The name constantly occurs on
London and Southwark coins.
4.60DRIE : ON : LVNDEN : -frhENKIEVS : 255
Watford find, 8 specimens.
J.60DRIE ON LVND *T\ENEIEVS 265
Lincoln and Son.
LVND 256
Wakeford, 1879, and Montagu, 1897, Sales,
from the Linton find. A halfpenny.
J.60DRIE : ON : LVN : .J-hENRIGV 266
Royal Mint collection ; Lincoln and Son.
frGOD . . 6 : ON : LVNDE * hEN . . . VS 256
J. Verity. From the Allen Sale, 1898.
*60DRIE ON LVN ^IiENRGVS 256
Watford find. As to the use of 6 for C refer
to page 97.
frGODRIEVS : ON : LVN ^hENRIEV : 256
Watford find, 3 specimens ; Lincoln and Son.
Godric continued to coin for Stephen and
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
the name frequently occurs on Saxon and
Norman coins of London.
.fGODPINE ON LVN .J.HNEI E AN 251
Engraved Withy and Ryall, ii. 3 ; and Ruding,
Sup., i. 2, 2. Godwine coined under the
two Williams, but the name is a common
one on Saxon coins of London and else-
where.
4.GODPINE : ON : SVDPE -frhENRI EEX 252
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. From the Allen
Sale, 1898, and Shillington find.
frGODPINE : ON : LVND ^hENEIEVS E 262
W. C. Boyd, 20 grs., from the Milford Haven
find. Mr. Boyd supplied most of the infor-
mation of this hoard. The moneyer was
probably son of the above.
4-60DPINE : . . LVNDEN .frhENE . . . S EE : 262
Watford find.
J.60DPINE . . . . NDEN . . . NBIEVS 255
Royal Mint collection.
4.GODPINE 6V : ON NEIEVS 255
J. Verity. From the Allen Sale, 1898. As to
this moneyer, see page 283.
[*I\]AMVND : ON : LVND .frliENEIEVS 255
Watford find. Hamund coined here for Stephen.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 301
frHEAIAMAN : ON LVN ? 267
Bari find. Sir John Evans queries this reading,
and the form H is evidently incorrect. It
may represent BLAEAMAN, but a Huneman,
citizen of London, witnesses the 1137 charter
of Gedffrey de Mandeville (Commune of
London, 101).
*LIFPINE ON SV . . EE ^hENEIEVS EE 251
L. A. Lawrence. Lifwine coined also at
London for Rufus, and at Southwark for the
Conqueror.
J.LIFPINE ON SVDEP 251
Warne Sale, 1889.
.fLIFPNE . . SVDE .J.HENEI EE 254
British Museum. Engraved Hawkins, 354.
frL . FPINE : ON : SVT .frliENEI EEX 256
British Museum. PL III, No. 5. Engraved
(Eeverse) N. tf.,x. p. 21, No. 9 and Ruding, i.
14. In the latter instance the engraver has
erroneously assumed the moneyer's name
to be SEPINE.
frLEFPIN ON SYD : fcliENHE EEX 257
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University. PI.
Ill, N o. 8.
*[L]EFPINVS ON : SVT *hENEI EE 266
British Museum.
4.LEFPINE ON SVD ^.hENEIEVS 264
British Museum. From the Marsham, 1888,
and Montagu, 1897, Sales.
VOL. 1. FOURTH SERIES. R R
302 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
*LEPINE ON : SVTP : .frliENRIEVS EEX : IV
AN:
Spink and Son. PL V, No. 9. From the
Whitbonrn, 1869, 1, Marsham, 1888, 6,
and Montagu, 1896, 4, Sales. Found in the
Thames.
.frLEFPINE O-frN SVTPVE I\E1SR . . 258
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University. PI.
VI, No. 8. Engraved Ruding, Sup. II. i. 3.
Obverse, before the sceptre, two quatrefoils.
Reverse, ^.N SVTPVR within the inner
circle.
^LEFPINE : ON : SVDPER : .frliENRIEVS R 262
Watford find, 2 specimens ; British Museum.
.frLEFPINE ON SVD . . ^IiENRIEVS R 262
Sir John Evans; Bergne Sale, 1873, 4;
Marsham Sale, 1888, 6 5s. Od.
: ON : S . DFE : * frENRIE VS : 262
Watford find.
^LEFWIN ON . LVND : ^.IiENRIEV 255
British Museum, 2 specimens, from Mr.
Rashleigh. As to the removal of the South-
wark money ers to London in 1131, see
page 286.
*LEF ... ON LVN : *IiE ..... 255
Lincoln and Son.
CLIFFORD ON SVDE *HNRI REX 251
J. S. Henderson. From the Blick, 1843,
Bergne, 1873, 7 2s. 6d., Halliburton-Young,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 303
1881, 5 10s. Od., and Simpson Rostron,
1892, 7 10s. Od., Sales. This moneyer
coined for Rufus.
.frLEFPABD ON SV *I\E>EIE EE : 257
Engraved, Speed's Chronicle, 1611, p. 434;
Withy and Ryall, ii. 12 ; Snelling, i. 21, and
Ending, Sup., i. 8. Sold, September, 1844,
7.
.frLEFEED : ON LVND ^hENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 6 specimens ; British Museum,
from Mr. Rashleigh. The ruoneyer's name
occurred here in Saxon times, and this
moneyer continued to coin for Stephen.
J.LIFFEED : ON LVND : ^IxENEIEVS 255
Watford find.
frLIEFEED ON LVND : .frhENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; Royal Mint col-
lection.
OLIF]EED : ON : LVN ^RENEIEV 255
Sir John Evans.
*L1FEED : ON . . . . B *hENEIEV 255
Watford find.
ONTETF ONN LVN P 267
Bari find. The reading is queried by Sir John
Evans.
304 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
frORDGAB, ON LVN) *HNEI REX N 251
H. M. Reynolds, 21 grs. From the Hender-
son, 1888, and probably the Neville-Rolfe,
1882, Sales. The moneyer coined for Rufus.
frORDGAR ON LVND -f-HNRI REX N 251
British Museum. See variety (B) page 45.
.frORDGAR ON LVN) *HNRI REX I 251
Engraved Ruding i. 15. 22 grs.
frORDGAR ON LVND .frhENRIEVS R 265
J. HalL
frDRDGAR : ON : LVNDE .frhENRIEVS RE 262
Watford find. The moneyer's name is of
course ORD6AR, as below, and the fre-
quency of similar blunders to this is pre-
sumptive evidence that the die-sinkers used
punches to form the letters of the legends.
See DERIEVS for EDR1EVS, page 217.
*.ORD[GAR] ON [LV]ND *hEN[RI]EVS R 262
Watford find ; British Museum ; Hunterian
Museum.
.frORDGAR : ON : LVNDE : . -frhENRIEVS 255
Watford find, 10 specimens ; British Museum;
Royal Mint collection ; Sheriff Mackenzie ;
R. M. Reynolds ; T. B. Winser ; J. Verity ;
Montagu Sale, 1897. This is perhaps
Ordgar the Prude, citizen of London, whose
name occurs on several charters of this date
(Commune of London, 98-106).
A M'MISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 305
.frORDSARVS ON LVN) *riENRIEVS 255
Watford find, 3 specimens; British Museum,
from Mr. Rashleigh.
frOSEBERN : 0,N : LVN * hENRIEVS 255
Watford find ; British Museum.
*OSEB ..... : LVN) *h . NR . . VS 255
W. J. Andrew.
..... ON LVNDE : * hENRIEVS 255
Lincoln and Son.
J.OSBERN ON LVN) * hENRIEVS 255
Watford find, 3 specimens.
frOSBERD : ON : LVNDE * hENRIEVS 255
Dartford find, 4 specimens, 21f grs.
4-RAVLFVS ON LV *hENRI RE 253
Late A. E. Packe. A Ralph fitz Algod was
a citizen of London in 1104 (Commune of
London, 102).
4-RAVFVS : ON LVNDE 267
Bari find.
frRAPVLF : ON LVN . hENRIEVS 264
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. PL IV, No. 11.
*RABVLF : ON ; LVNDE * hENRIEVS : R : 266
T. Bliss. From the Cuff, 1854, 8,
Dymock, 1858, Murchison, 1864,
306 NUMISMATIC CHKONICLE.
7 7s, Od., April, 1873, Brice and Mon-
tagu, 1886, 6 2s. 6d., collections.
*EA . VLF : ON : LVNDE : *hENEIEVS E 265
British Museum; Norris Sale, 1868,
3 15s. Od.
4-EAPVLF ON LVNDEN : *hENE ...SB: 262
T. Bliss. PL VII, No, 5. From the
Milford Haven find. Obverse, a larger
bust than usual. As to this moneyer see
under Oxford, page 856.
*EAP ... ON LVNDE : ^hENEIEVS : EEX 262
Bodleian Library. 20 grs. Engraved
Ruding, Sup., ii., 2, 7. Only one other
instance of this obverse legend occurs on
type 262 namety on a Winchester coin.
See page 465.
*EA\VLE . LVNDE .frhENEIEVS EE 262
Watford find, 2 specimens.
J.EAVLF ON LVNDE : .frhENEIEVS E 262
British Museum. The name occurs on London
coins of Stephen.
frEAVF ON LVN : . hENEIEVS E : 262
Engraved Withy and Ryall, ii., 9.
frEADVLVS : . ... * hENEIEVS E : 262
J. Verity,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 307
.frROBERD : ON : L . . *I\EN 255
Lincoln and Son. The moneyer continued to
coin for Stephen.
4. ROGER ON EVNDE ^.hENRIEVS 255
Watford find, 8 specimens. The inoneyer
continued to coin for Stephen.
.J.R06IER : ON : L . . . .frliENRIEVS 255
"Watford find.
frROGIR : ON : LVNDENE : -frhENRIEVS 255
British Museum, from Mr. Rashleigh; Royal
Mint collection; late A. E. Packe; Spink
and Son.
frSIGAR ON LVNDE *I\ENRI REX 252
F. G. Lawrence, 20^- grs. ; Allen Sale, 1898,
2 specimens from the Shillington find.
.frSIGAR ON LVNDE *I\ENRI REX 252
University College, Cambridge. From a cast
supplied by Mr. Francis Jenkinson.
*SIGI\ER ON : LVNDEN 267
Bari find.
frSIGAR ON . LVNDGNE 4<I\ENRIE RE 266
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
PL IV, No. 7. Engraved Withy and Ryall
ii., 6 ; Snelling, i., 17 ; Ruding, ii., 7.
308 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
frSIGAEVS ON LVND .frhENEI RE 266
British Museum. PI. IV, No. 5. From the
Montagu Sale, 1896, 6 12s. 6d.
*SIGAB : ON : LVNDE : .frftENEIEVS E : 264
J. Murdoch. PI. Iy, No. 9.
ON LVND: ^.hENEI EEX 263
British Museum. PI. V, No. 5 ; Fig. N, p. 70.
Engraved, Hawkins, 263.
.... AE ON LVND . I\E ..... X AN IV
L. A. Lawrence ; Wakeford Sale, 1879 ; but
possibly ALGAE.
*SI6AE . . LVND *fiENE. ... A IV
British Museum.
*SI6AE ON : LVNDEN .frhENEIEVS E 265
British Museum. Probably the Tyssen,
1802, coin.
*SIGAE IxENE D : .frliENEIE ^SIGAE 265
Montagu Sale, 1897. This curious legend is
merely the effect of the planchet having
been twice struck, but turned over between
times.
.frSIGAE ON LVNDEN : * hENEIE VIS E 262
Watford find, 2 specimens.
ON LVNDEN *I\ENEIEVS : E 262
Watford find, 2 specimens ; British Museum,
2 specimens.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 309
^SMIEPINE ON LVN *HNRIEVS REX 251
British Museum. The family were Saxon
money erg at Guildford, and, with that of
Blacman, probably migrated to London on
the discontinuance of the former mint.
^.SMIEPINE ON LV * HENRI RE AN. 251
Bodleian Library.
PINS .. . . NDE ^I\E1SB 257
Spink and Son. PI. Ill, No. 10. From the
Marsham, 1888, and Montagu, 1896, Sales.
N : ON : LVN)E : -frhENRIEVS : 255
J. S. Henderson. PL VII, No. 10. From
the Marsham, 1888, and Montagu, 1896,
6, Sales. This moneyer continued to coin
for Stephen and was probably son of the
above.
^.SMJEPIN ON LVN *I\ENRIEVS 255
Watford find, 2 specimens; late J. Toplis ;
Christmas Sale, 1864.
4.SMEPINE ON LVND * IiENRIE VS : R 255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; L. A. Lawrence ;
Taylor Sale, 1855 ; Neville-Rolf Sale, 1882.
[*S]PIRLI[N6] ON LVN 251
Late J. Toplis.
*SPIRLIN6 ON LVN *hENRI REX: 252
A. A. Banes, 21 grs. ; E. T. Corfield ; Lincoln
and Son ; Coventry Sale, 1884.
VOT,. I. FOURTH SERIES.
310 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
.J.SPIELI . . ON LVN . . ENEI . BEX : 232
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton.
J.SPIELIG ON LVND IV
Battle find.
J.SP. . . 16: ON LVN: .frhENEIEVS : . . . : IV
J. Young.
4.SPEELI6 : ON- LVND: .frhENEIEVS E 265
British Museum.
^.SPEELIG ON : LVNDE : *I\ENEIEVS E 265
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
*S .... 16 ON LVNDE *I\ENEIEVS E 265
Cotton Sale, 1889 ; Nunn Sale, 1896.
6 : ON : LVNDE : ^IiENEIEVS E 265
J. Murdoch. As to this moneyer see page 283.
frSPO[TE] ON SVDEPI ^.IHEIESNIS EEX 251
British Museum. The moneyer coined here
for Eufus as SPEOT.
J.SVLTA ON LVNDE 257
Bari find. The moneyer is probably SPOTE.
frSNOTE ON LVNDE *I\ENEIEVS E 264
Preston Sale, 1891. The moneyer is probably
SPOTE.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGX OF HEXRY I. 311
*D[EODR]IE ON LV[ND]EN *hENRI REX 252
Lincoln and Son. As to this moneyer, see
page 281.
* DEODRIS : ON : LVND : 267
Bari find. * DEODPIG " in the list of
this find.
frDVRED ON LVNDENE 267
Bari find. The Theodred family were Saxon
moneyers of London.
I.DVRED : ON : LVNDOFE ^.T\ENRIE REX 207
L. A. Lawrence, 17 grs. PI. IV, No. 1. The
variety (B) described on page 64.
ADORED : ON : LVN30NI *I\ENRI REX 263
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
PI. V, No. 3.
frTOVI : ON LVNDENE *I\ENRIEV 255
Watford find, 4 specimens; L. A. Lawrence,
22 grs.; F. E. Whelan, from the Wigan
collection. The moneyer continued to coin
for Stephen.
4-TOVI : ON LVNDE *hENRICVS 255
Watford find, 6 specimens ; British Museum,
from Mr. Rashleigh.
ND !... RIEVS R 255
Watford find.
312 M MISMATIC CHRONICLE.
^VLFEAVEN ON LVND *IiENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; T. Bliss ;
W. S. Ogden.
*VLP ... See ^PVLPAED.
^PILLELMVS ON LVN 255
Kennard Sale, 1892, 2 specimens. From the
Linton find, WILLELMVS in the catalogue.
The moneyer is possibly the William Travers,
citizen of London, of the 1137 charter
(Commune of Lond., 101), and see page 357.
^PILLEM ..... $<l\E . . IE . . 255
A. A. Banes.
^PVLFPOED ON LVND 251
Egmont-Bieber Sale, 1889, Q 15s. Od. From
the Shepherd Sale, 1885. The moneyer
coined for Kufus, and the name appears on
Saxon coins of London.
^PVLFPORD ON LVN ^HNEIEVS EEX 251
Lord Pembroke's collection, 1750, sold 1848,
11. Dymock, 1858, Murchison, 1864,
Taylor, 1874 Sales. 21-& grs.
^PVLFPOED ON LVN *HNEI EEX I 251
Engraved Withy and Ryall, i. 1, but corrected
from " >PALFOED."
^PVLEPOED ON NE ^HNEIEVS EEX 251
British Museum. See page 318. From the
Southgate and Tyssen, 1802, collections.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 313
As the period is too early for either Newark
or Newcastle this mast be intended for
London, and the moneyer's name does not
occur elsewhere. Even the E instead of F
is again similarly used in PVLEPAED be-
low. A somewhat parallel case is that of
^EADPEED ON VNEP on a London coin
of Canute. The explanation, therefore, may
be that the N in ON is intended also to be
read as a monogram N LV (instead of
the common 1SL) thus giving us LVNE. On
Canute's coin the N would be NJ and so
= ON LVNED.
J<PVLPARD : ON LVN : . hENEIEVS EEX : IV
G. Deakin; Sale, May, 1891. This moneyer
was probably son of the above.
>I<VLP[AED] ON : LVN : ^hENEIEVS E IV
British Museum.
^PVLFPAED : ON : LVN): ^hENEIEVS EE 262
Watford find, 2 specimens.
^[PV]LEPAED ON LVN ^hENEIEVS EE 262
Watford find.
*PVLFPAED ON LVND *hENEIEVS E : 262
British Museum ; Christmas Sale, 1864.
. PAED : ON : LVN ^hENEIEVS E : 262
Spink and Son. From the Cuff, 1854,
4 6s. Od., Wigan, Neck and Webb, 1894,
4 4s. Od., collections.
314 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
frPVLFPINE ON LVN ^hEXRI EBX I? 1 "'
(Rev. 267
Sheriff Mackenzie. The variety described and
illustrated as Fig. H on page 60. The name
occurs on London coins from the time of
Ethelred II.
t^PVLFPINE ON LVND 267
Bari find.
^PVLFPINE ON LVNJ : J<hENEI RE 263
Spink and Son. PI. V. No. 2. From the
Bergne, 1873, 2, Simpson Eostron, 1892,
2 4s. Od., and Montagu, 1896, 2 8s. Od.,
^PVLFPINE : ON : LVN ^IiENElEVS E 255
Bodleian Library. Probably engraved Withy
and Ryall, i. 23. The moneyer was perhaps
son of the above.
: ON : LVN) ^hENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 4 specimens ; Sheriff Mackenzie ;
W. C. Boyd, from the Wadsworth Sale,
1891 ; T. B. Winser, 2 specimens ; E. K.
Burstal.
^PVLFPIN : ON t LVND J<fiENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 8 specimens.
J<PVLFPIN : ON : LVN : ^hENEIEVS
British Museum ; Bodleian Library ; F. G.
Laurence, 22 grs.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 315
ON LVNI 257
Bari find. The family of this name had coined
here or at Southwark since the time of
Canute. A Hugh, son of Wulfgar, was a
citizen of London, 1125-1137 (Commune of
Lond., 162).
>I<PVLFGAE ON : LVNDE : >thEKEI EEX 267
British Museum. PI. VIII. No. 7. The variety
(D) described on page 64.
*PVLGAE : ON : LVN : *hENEIEVS EEX IV
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. PI. VIII. No. 9.
frPVLGAE ON LVNDE 265
Sale, 1842.
>!<PVL6AE ON LVNDE ^hENEIEVS E 265
British Museum.
^PVLGAE ON LVNDEN : ^hENEIEVS EE 262
Watford find ; British Museum, from Mr.
Rashleigh.
*PVL6AE : ON : LVNDE : ^hENEIEVS E : 262
Watford find, 2 specimens ; British Museum,
2 specimens; P. W. P. Carlyon-BrittoD,
from the Boyne Sale, 1896; J. Verity;
Sale, 1842 ; Cuff Sale, 1854, 4 6s. Od. ;
Cureton Sale, 1859.
*WVLGAE : ONLV DE : *hENEIE . S E 262
Watford find.
316 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
I
SPECIMENS UNDESCRIBED.
LONDON.
Tyssen, 1802, 3 specimens ; Phare, 1834 ; Harrower-
Johnston, 1876, 3 12s. Od. ; York Moore,
1879, 2 3s. Od., Sales . .251
The variety described as (A) on page 48 ( bverse j^f
( Reverse 251
Bentham Sale, 1834 253
Allen, 1898; Shepherd, 1888, 4 10s. Od., Sales . 252
Tyssen Sale, 1802 263
. 258
,, ,, 2 specimens .... 265
,, ; Bentham, 1834, 3 4s. Od. . 255
SOUTHWABK.
Sale, June, 1901 .... .265
NE NA.
NE. Newark is claimed by Ruding (vol. i., p. 166 and
vol. ii., p. 204-5) for this reading and he says :
" Alexander, who was Bishop of Lincoln from 1123, the
twenty-third year of Henry I., to 1147, the twelfth year
of Stephen, had a charter for coining money here. It is
probable that this charter was granted by the former of
these kings, for Stephen confirmed to the Bishop of
Lincoln, Robert de Caysneto, one die for making money
in his castle here [Newark]. This grant was pleaded by the
Bishop in the third year of Edward III, when he was called
upon to show by what right he claimed the privilege of
coining. It seems that his plea was overruled, upon the
ground that Stephen was not the lawful king, but an
A XI MISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 317
intruder into the kingdom, and therefore had no power
therein beyond the term of his natural life. The original
grant itself stood imimpeached."
The last words, here given in italics, are not supported
by the authorities quoted by Ending and are merely the
author's own comment. If there had ever been a like
grant from Henry I, the Bishop surely would have
pleaded it and the result would have been different.
Henry I certainly granted several charters to Alexander
confirming his privileges over Newark as Bishop of
Lincoln (see the Monasticon), but in none of these is
there any reference to coinage, and therefore when we
are told that the then Bishop in Edward Ill's time on
being challenged upon a writ quo warranto to prove his
ancient rights of coinage, alleged a grant from Stephen*
we have no right whatever to throw it back to a previous
reign, the more so as the Bishop actually lost his case
from his inability to show a title from a king dejure. It
is true that Stephen's grant is in a confirmation charter,
but that would follow as a matter of course, as his original
grant must have been to Bishop Alexander, probably
early in his reign. The following is the authority for
the facts as we have them.
"Episcopus Line, summonitus ad ostendendum quo
warranto clamat &c. cuneum in castro suo de Newerk ad
monetam faciendam 3. Ed. 3. Episcopus dicit quod S.
quondam Rex Angliae confirmavit EcclesiaB Lincoln. &
Roberto de Caysneto Episcopo unum cuneum apud
Newerk. Et Willelmus de Denum qui sequitur pro
Domino Rege, quoad prsedictum cuneum dicit, quod cum
Episcopus clamat cuneum ilium per Cartam praedictam,
S. quern idem Episcopus afferit fuisse Regem &c. cuneum
ilium eo titulo habere non potest. Dicit enim quod
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 1 T
318 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
praedictus S. intrusit se in praedicto regno. Ita quod
postea idem S. non habuit statum in regimine ejusdem
regni nisi ad terminum vitae suae tantum &c. unde
petit judiciura, &c." (Hearne's William of Newbury,
A.D. 1719.)
But the whole claim rests on the reading of a single
coin viz. -frPVLEPOKD ON NE of type 251 a type
issued long before the date of Bishop Alexander's
installation and that coin, as we have already seen on
pages 312-13, is really of the London mint.
NA. In the Watford find, the legends *SWETMAN:
ON : NA and * SWETMAN ON ... B, occurred on type
255 and, following the same line of reasoning which appro-
priated NE to London, see page 313, these coins should
be given to Oxford as contractions of ON OXNAFORD. the
ON standing in a double capacity for ON and OX ; just as
the N in ON serves for the N of NOEPIC in Henry's
early types of that mint. The name Swetman occurs
on the Oxford coins of William I, and also in Domesday
as monetarius of that city.
NORTHAMPTON.
NOBTHAMTUNE, NoKTHANTUNE, NOEHANTUNE, NoRTHANTONA J
Domesday, NOKTHANTONE and HANTONE ; Pipe Roll,
NORHANTONA.
Although Celtic and Roman remains abound in the
immediate vicinity, the ancient town of Northampton
does not seem to find its way into the pages of history
until the ninth century, when it fell into the hands of the
Danes, and for nearly fifty years remained in their
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN G? HENRY I. 319
possession. In 922, however, it was recovered by Edward
the Elder ; but, although in 941 the garrison successfully
resisted the siege of Anlaf, the Dane, in 1010 the burg
was burnt to the ground. During the insurrection of the
Northumbrians in 1065, " the northern men did muchharm
about Northampton .... inasmuch as they slew men
and burnt houses and corn, and took all the cattle they
could get, and that was many thousand ; and many
hundred men they took and led northward with them ; so
that that shire, and the other shires which were nigh,
were for many years the worse." (Sax. Chron.)
[For the history and devolution of the Earldom of
Northampton see ante, under Huntingdon, pages 219-
227.]
1086. Domesday notes. "In the time of King Edward
there were 60 burgesses in lordship of the King at
Northampton, having the same number of houses. Of
these houses, 14 are now laid waste. There are 47
remaining ; in addition to these there are now 40
burgesses in the new burg." Details are given of the
possessions of the various feudatories which raise the
total number of houses within the burg to 316, of
which, however, 35 are laid waste no doubt owing
to the raid of 1065. "The burgesses of [North]
Hampton pay 30 10s. Od. to the sheriff per annum ;
this represents ihejirma itself. The Countess Judith
(see under Huntingdon, page 220) has 7 out of the
returns of the same burg."
1106. The conference of King Henry and Robert of Nor-
mandy at Northampton. (Sax. Chron.)
11078. Foundation charter of St. Andrew's Priory;
probably in the spring of 1108.
1122. The "King held his Easter Court at Northampton.
(Sax. Chron.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The burg is separated from the
usual county returns. Robert Revel [as sheriff], after
paying 8 2s. Id. for customary disbursements, and
20s. to the monks of Northampton, also 3 shillings and
8d. to the same monks " for their laud which the
320 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
King took below his Castle," returns 90 14s. 8d.
[balance] " of the firm a of the burg of Northampton "
[total, 100]. The burg also contributes 8 4s. Od.
as auxillum. Under the Xova Placita of the county
Geoffrey " de Gunetorp " accounts for ten marks of
silver on a Treasury plea.
1131. September 8. The great Council at Northampton,
when Henry summoned all his Barons to take the
oath of fealty to Matilda as heiress to the throne.
It is probable that in the early years of the Conqueror,
Earl Waltheof had the privilege of a joint mint at North-
ampton and Huntingdon, but after his death, at least, its
coinage seems to have been entirely confined to the latter
town. The royal mint of Northampton was the creation
of Henry I, and our coins of it tell us that its date of
origin must have been about 1126-1128.
We have seen, under Huntingdon, pages 219-227, that
upon his marriage in 1113 with Maud, widow of Earl
Simon and daughter of Waltheof, David, Prince of Cum-
bria, received the Earldom of Huntingdon, and the custody
of that of Northampton, in right of his wife. In 1124
to quote the Saxon Chronicler " died Alexander, King
of Scotland, on the 9th before the Kalends of May [i.e.
April 23rd] and his brother David, then Earl of North-
amptonshire, succeeded him and held at the same time
both the Kingdom of Scotland and the English earldom."
This would appear to be the last record in which King
David is associated with the Earldom of Northampton.
That he retained his Earldom of Huntingdon there can
be no doubt, but whenever his English Earldom is subse-
quently referred to, it is that of Huntingdon alone. Even
when he invaded England in 1138 his claim was to the
government of Northumbria, the town of Carlisle and the
Earldom of Huntingdon, so it is scarcely credible that he
still retained any pretensions to the Earldom of Northamp-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 321
ton. The inference, therefore, is that on his accession to the
Scottish throne in 1124, the precedent of 1121 in the case
of the Earldom of Chester (pages 140, 145 and 148) was
followed, the joint earldom was severed, and he relinquished
that of Northampton to the King. He was certainly not
Earl of Northampton at the date of the Pipe Roll, and
thefrrma of the burg was then paid direct to the Treasury,
hence the change must have occurred between April 1124
and Michaelmas 1129. His first visit to England after
his accession was in January, 1127, and as he would then
pay homage as King of Scotland to Henry for his English
Earldom, it may be assumed that he then surrendered
Northampton and received a confirmation charter of the
Earldom of Huntingdon alone.
But we have other evidence in support of this conten-
tion. Tihefirtna of the burg was 30 10s. Od. at the date
of Domesday, and yet in 1130 it was .100. At the latter
date the burgesses had acquired the privilege of paying
th'jir firma through the sheriff of their burg instead of
through the sheriff of the county, thus escaping the
extortions of the then prevailing system of assessment :
a privilege which seems only to have been acquired by
such royal cities or burgs as London, Lincoln, and Car-
lisle. The castle, which had been founded by Earl Simon,
now belongs to the King, and he has evidently been
extending its fortifications. All these changes can only
be explained by the fact that the King had recovered
possession of the burg and had already granted a charter
of privileges to its burgesses. He could not have granted
it before April, 1124, when it was still in the possession of
David, nor before the latter tendered his homage for his
English possessions, and so its date may be assumed to
have been January, 1127.
322 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
The history of Northampton is indeed almost identical
at this period with that of Carlisle. In 1122 Henry held
his Easter Court at Northampton and spent Michaelmas
at Carlisle (Sim. of Durham). Just as Carlisle, in 1120,
was surrendered to the King by Ralph de Meschines in
exchange for a confirmation charter of the Earldom of
Chester, and thus became a royal burg, so Northampton
in 1127 was similarly surrendered by David in exchange
for his confirmation charter of the Earldom of Huntingdon.
Charters of privileges to the burgesses immediately followed
in both cases. In 1129 a royal mint was established at
Carlisle, and in, January, 1127, it is contended, a royal
mint was established at Northampton; probably by the
charter of privileges itself.
We have ample evidence that Northampton was a royal
mint, for, according to the Pipe Rolls of subsequent
reigns, the moneyers contributed 10 towards the auxilium
for marrying Henry II's daughter, Maud, and aftrma of
'3. The mint or its moneyers " in the burg of Northamp-
ton " is frequently mentioned, and, finally, in 1189
Richard I, in his charter to the burgesses, confirms their
privileges in identical language and with the same excep-
tion as in his charter to London (pages 276 and 284), viz.,
" that none shall plead without the walls of the burg of
Northampton upon any plea, save pleas of outholdings,
except our moneyers and officers " (see Records of the
Borough of Northampton). As, therefore, Richard's
charter to London confirmed Henry I's charter to the
city almost word for word, it may be assumed that his
charter to Northampton similarly confirmed that of
January, 1127. The more so as the mint of Northampton
was instituted in that year.
The first type in evidence is that of 265 (1126-1128),
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HEXRY 1. 323
and as yet, the name of one moneyer, only, seems forth-
coming upon it. But on the following type, 262 (1129-
1131), when the mint had come into full operation, two
names appear, viz., that of the original raoneyer and of
one 6EFFRE. In 6EFFRE we have the Geoffrey de Gune-
torpe, who in 1129-30 is fined 10 marks of silver on a
Treasury plea, presumably for some offence committed
by his subordinates in charge of the mint. Gunetorpe,
i.e., Gunthorpe, is near Oakham; and there, no doubt,
was the royal moneyer 's feu. Having been fined, his office
was as usual forfeited, and his name is absent from
the subsequent type. Type 255 (1131-1135), on which
the number of moneyers is further increased to three,
follows, thus giving us a complete series from January,
1127, to the close of the reign.
The mint of Northampton was continued until the reign
of Henry III.
It has not escaped observation that Hantone occurs, in
one instance, in Domesday as the name of this town, and
that every known type of the coins of Henry I reading ON
ft AMTVN, etc., and assigned to Southampton, exactly corres-
ponds as to date with the presence in England of Earl Simon
and Earl David respectively, also that the name PAIEN is
found as a moneyer upon some of them. But in view of the
general consension of opinion that the mint of Hampton,
established by Athelstan's Law, was at the southern town,
of the absence of any break in the coinage when the
latter mint may be said to have been discontinued and that
of Northampton commenced, and of the record of a coin
of William I reading NORHAM at the very time when the
name, according to Domesday, was already in. transition,
the weight of evidence is not, as yet, deemed sufficient to
outweigh the claims of Southampton to a Norman mint.
324 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
COINS.
I<6EFFEE[1] : ON : NORhA : !<h . . RIEVS E . 262
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. As to this moneyer,
see before.
^6EFFEE[I] ON : NOEhA : ^hENEIEV EE 262
British Museum.
^PAIEN : ON : NOEI\AM ^hENEIEV 255
Clarkson Sale, 1901 ; Allen Sale, 1898 ; Sale,
April, 1864. This moneyer was probably
Geoffrey's successor, and may possibly have
been the Payn de Hocton ('? Houghton, 2f
miles from Northampton) who, about 1129,
married the widow of Edward of Salisbury
(Pipe Roll).
*PAIEN : . N : NO . . AN . . ENRIEVS 255
Spink and Son.
: ON NOE . N : . . ENRI6VS 255
W. C. Wells.
I<PAIEN ON NOEIxA : >hEN . . . . S 255
L. A. Lawrence ; Watford find.
^iPAIEN ON NOEI\AM >J<I\ENEIEV . 255
J. Verity.
^[PAE] N : ON : NOEhAM ......... 255
Sir John Evans. As there is scarcely room
for PAIEN, the name has probably now
assumed its shortened form PAEN as in
Stephen's reign.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HEXRY I. 325
*STIEFNES : ON [NOEJhA . . ENEIEVS R 265
Allen Sale, 1898, photographed in the catalogue.
^STIEFNES ON, ..... 265
Cuff Sale, 1854, 4 (corrected).
^STIEFNES ON ____ A 265
Sale, January, 1860.
[*ST]IFNE : ON : NOE[hA :] [*hENEIE]VS E 262
Watford find.
*STIFNE : ON ... *hE . EIEVS 255
Watford find. This moneyer's name only
occurs elsewhere at Winchester.
fcSTIF ......... ^IiENEIE 255
Fitz-William Museum, Cambridge ; Royal Mint
collection.
>J<S[T]EPI\AN . . .... ^[I\E]NEIE 255
Watford find.
. . OD : ON : NOE[I\]A . I\ENEIEVS 255
Watford find. The moneyer's name was
probably PVLNOD.
ON : NOEhA ^h ---- EVS : 255
British Museum ; Sale, 1842.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. U U
326 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
OX NORhA : >JriENRIEVS 255
British Museum; Watford find, 2 specimens.
The coins formerly attributed to this mint bearing
the moneyer's name OSWEF, OSVEF or
VSVEF, of Northampton, have been exposed
by Mr. L. A. Lawrence, in Num. Chron.,
III., x. p. 42-47, and, as he demonstrates,
are all false.
NORWICH (NORFOLK).
NOBTHWIC, NORDWIC, NoRpovicuM ; Domesday and Pipe Roll,
NORWIC.
Although there are many indications that the immediate
vicinity to Norwich was the centre of a considerable popu-
lation in Celtic, Roman, and British times, the name of
the town itself does not enter the pages of our English
chronicles until a comparatively late period. In 1004
the Danes, under Sweyn, sacked and burnt the burg ; but
it must have soon recovered, for in the reign of the Con-
fessor Norwich boasted one of the largest populations in
the country.
1075. The conspiracy and fall of Ralph de Guader, Earl
of East Anglia (see pp. 220 and 230). The Earl
fled abroad and his estates were confiscated, but
his wife defended Norwich against the King " until
she obtained terms." (Sax. Chron.) The town
suffered considerably during the siege, as is evidenced
in Domesday.
1075-6. Hubert de Rye appointed Castellan of the
" Tower of Norwich."
1082. Roger Bigod appointed King's Castellan of Nor-
wich. [For the history of this family, see under
Ipswich, pages 228-236.]
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 327
1086. Domesday notes. In Norwich there were, in the
time of King Edward, 1,320 burgesses, of whom 1,230
rendered soca and saka and paid customs to the King.
Now there are in the burg 665 English burgesses who
pay customs and 480 bondsmen [who had evidently
lost their freedom during the revolt of Earl Ralph and
had been reduced to serfdom] too impoverished to
pay. About 100 houses have been destroyed for the
site of the Castle, and there are no fewer than 190
vacated in the burg. Many additional details are
given, including the names of various feudatories who
also held houses within the burg. The whole town in
the time of the Confessor paid 20 to the King and
10 to the Earl ; also certain customs, including a bear
and six dogs to bait it. Now it pays 70 by weight
to the King and 100 shillings by number as bounty
to the Queen, and one goshawk and 20 blanched to
the Earl and '20 shillings by number as a fine to God-
ric [the sheriff]. In this burg, if he wishes, the Bishop
[of the See of East Anglia, then located at Thetford
but afterwards at Norwich] is allowed to have one
moneyer.
The Normans of Norwich. In the new burg there
were 36 burgesses and six English, from whom the
King had two parts and the Earl the third ; now there
are 41 in lordship to the King and Roger Bigod has
50, and others are under various feudatories.
1094. Herbert, Bishop of East Anglia, " transferred the
seat of his bishopric [from Thetford] to a town cele-
brated as a place of trade and general mart called
Norwich, and founded there a monastery." (Florence.)
1119. July 22. Death of Bishop Herbert. (Florence.)
1121. March. Everard, Chaplain to the Kin^, is ap-
pointed Bishop and consecrated June 12th. (Florence.)
December 25. The King holds his Christmas Court
at Norwich (Sax. Chron.),and is said to have granted
a charter to the citizens extending their privileges.
ll:)0. Pipe Roll notes. Edstan de Gernemuda [Yar-
mouth] accounts for twenty-three shillings and
four pence on a Treasury plea, and Siverd de Gerue-
muda and Aniuud de Gernemuda similarly for ten
shillings each. Edstan owes one hundred shillings
for [his fees on bis succession to] the personal
effects of Ulchetel the moneyer. The city of Norwich
contribuies 80 in inucilinin, but one hundred shillings
328 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
of it are remitted to the burgesses by the King's writ.
The Bishop of Ely accounts for 500 that his knights
might keep Castle Guard in the Isle of Ely instead of
at Norwich Castle. [This is evidently the considera-
tion for the well-known charter to that effect.]
During the eighth and ninth centuries the Kings of
East Anglia issued a considerable coinage, and as there
seems every reason to assume that the moneyers were
at that time attached to the King's Court, some of it, at
least, would probably be issued at Norwich.
The known coinage of Norwich commences in the
reign of Athelstan, and was continued under every suc-
ceeding Saxon King. The mint was one of the most
prolific in the country and a royal mint throughout its
existence. At the date of Domesday its firma, as at
Huntingdon, Dorchester, and other towns, was evidently
included in that of the burgesses, and it is expressly
stipulated that the Bishop of East Anglia was entitled
to one of its moneyers when he wished. It will be
noticed in Domesday that out of the firma of the burg,
100 shillings are reserved to the Queen and 20 to the
Earl. At that date there was neither Queen nor Earl,
but, as explained in the case of Dover, page 175, these
sums would be received by the King. It will presently
be suggested that the item of 100 shillings so paid " de
Gersuma Reginse " was, in fact, the actual firma of the
mint, or, at least, its contribution to the common firma
of the burg. We know from charters of Henry II and
Richard I that Norwich was a royal mint and there is
no evidence as yet forthcoming that the Bishop ever
exercised his privilege of a moneyer in it.
As a royal mint, leased to the citizens, one would
naturally expect to find a complete series of types issued
from it, but in the reign of Henry I this is not quite the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 329
case. From the commencement of the reign to the year
1114, with the exception of one 256 (1108-1110) all
the types are represented on our coins, viz., 251, 254,
253, 252 (1100-1108), 257 and 267 (1110-1114). But
now, for seven years/there is a gap in the coinage of
Norwich, for types 266, 264, and 263, are absent. It
may be that accident may yet disclose specimens of
them, but when we notice the coincidences that at the
very date of the previously missing type 256 (1108-
1110) Queen Matilda was upon her only journey to
Normaiidy and witnessed Henry's charter to the Priory
of St. Faith, Longueville, at Rouen {Documents in France),
and that after the marriage of her daughter in 1114 she
retired into what was practically a conventual life at
Westminster until her death on May 1st, 1118, it would
seem as if the mint of Norwich was her privilege and
under her immediate control. Domesday reserved 100
shillings out of the firma of the burg to the Queen of
England, and, in 1129-1130, 100 shillings was, as will
be submitted upon the evidence of the Pipe Roll, the then
Jirma of the mint. Hence, when to these reasons ia
added the coincidence of the absence of Queen Adeliza in
Normandy during 1128-9, when the mint was again
closed, there would appear to be reasonable ground for
suspicion, at least, that the mint of Norwich and its
fir ma were amongst the perquisites of the Queen Consort
for the time being, in very much the same manner as
similar privileges were held by the Norman Earls.
On January 29th, 1121, King Henry married Adeliza
of Louvain, and the mint is in consequence reopened by
the citizens in type IV (1121-1123). This is followed in
succession by types 258 and 265 (1123-1128). In 1128
Queen Adeliza was in Normandy, no doubt to attend
330 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
her step-daughter, Matilda's, marriage, for in September,
at the very date when type 262 was issued in England,
she was present at the great synod at Rouen. This is
proved by the charter to Savigny Abbey which she wit-
nessed, and which, in Documents in France, Mr. Round
dates 1124-1133. But as it is also witnessed by King
Henry ; John, Bishop of Lisieux ; Richard, Bishop of
Bayeux ; John, Bishop of Saies ; and Turgis, Bishop of
Avranches, all of whom are mentioned by Orderic as
being present at the synod, there can be no doubt that
it was granted upon that occasion and that its specific
date was therefore September, 1128. This may, there-
fore, account for the curious absence of any coins of
type 262 (1128-1131) from the Norwich mint ; curious,
because on that type appear the names of more towns
than upon any other in Henry's series. Adeliza doubtless
returned to England during its currency, that is, before,
perhaps, in July, 1129, and, therefore, it is not improbable
that some coins of it, struck at Norwich, may yet be
found; but all those hitherto attributed to this mint have,
upon examination, proved to belong to Northampton, and
so, for the present at least, the negatory evidence prevails.
The apparent absence of type 262 (1128-1131) is another
of these remarkable coincidences between the records of the
Pipe Roll of 1129-30 and the evidence of our coins. On
page 171 it has been shown that ihefirma of the mint of
Dorchester was 40s. at the date of Domesday, and that
when the mint was closed in 1129-30, the Pipe Roll
records that out of the auxilium of that town 40s. was
remitted to the burgesses. Similar instances occur at
Colchester, Oxford, Tamworth, Thetford, and "Wallingford.
When, therefore, we read in the same Roll, and in
identical language, that in 1129-1130, out of the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGX OF HEXRY I. 331
of Norwich 100 shillings were remitted to the burgesses,
we may fairly assume that not only was the item of 100
shillings the firma of the mint, but that the mint was also
closed during that particular year, and, when coupled
with the fact of the rarity of the current type, 262, this
assumption almost approaches a certainty.
The entries in the 1130 Pipe Roll concerning the three
inea of Yarmouth probably relate to a fine for short
weight in their returns for the firma of that town, as it
never had a mint. But the item "Edstan owes one
hundred shillings for the personal effects [" de pecunia,"
see page 179] of TJlchetel the moneyer," directly concerns
two money ers of Norwich. Ulchetel was the VLFEfilTEL
on type 265 (1126-1128), and as his name does not again
occur, we may assume that he died in 1128 or 1129.
Edstan is the EDSTAN whose name appears on type 255
as soon as the mint reopens in 1131. At Hereford,
Domesday tells us, that "in case of the death of a
moneyer of the King, the King had a duty of 20s., but
if a moneyer died intestate, the King had all his effects."
So probably Ulfchetel died intestate, and Edstan his heir
redeemed "all his effects" for 100s. Further, Ulchetel's
is the only moneyer' s name which appears on the previous
type, 265 (1126-1128) and what Edstan pays for succeed-
ing to his personal effects and office is exactly equal to
one year's firma of the mint. The mint may, perhaps,
have been closed in 1129-1130 in consequence of the
death of its moneyer, Ulchetel.
This suggests another probable pedigree. Domesday
refers to an Edstan of Norwich who seems to have been in
the position of an official of Edward the Confessor. He is
followed, presumably, by his son Ulchetel, who held lands
in Norfolk in 1086 (Domesday), and was probably the
332 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
VLFCITEL whose name appears on the Norwich coins of the
Williams ; and he again by his son ETSTAN, who coins in
nearly all Henry's types between 1104 and 1125. He
could scarcely be the EDSTAN of the Roll and of type 255,
as that form of the name is continued upon Norwich coins
until about the year 1150. It is probable, therefore, that
ETSTAN disappeared at the date of the great Inquisition
of the Money ers of Christmas, 1125, leaving two sons, the
VLCKETEL and EDSTAN referred to in the Pipe Roll.
From the commencement of Henry's reign to the year
1130, after allowing for changes during the currency of a
type, the usual number of moiieyers coining at Norwich
has evidently been two, although at times only one,
but now, when the mint is reopened with type 255
(1131-1135) that number is raised to at least six.
It will be remembered that a similarly remarkabb
increase occurred in the same type at London, page 283,
when, after making ample allowance for the inclusien
of the Southwark moneyers, the number was doubled.
The explanation of the sudden increase at London
was the King's charter of privileges to the citizens,
and so the same cause must be looked for at Norw ch.
All Norfolk historians are agreed that Henry I graated
a charter to Norwich, and they very naturally have
assigned its date to the occasion when he held his Cou-t
there in 1121-2, for at the time they wrote, the London
charter was believed to have been granted in 1101. Ihe
evidence of the charter, assuming that it is not extant, rests
on one of Henry II confirming it, which recites that the
citizens of Norwich had the same privileges as the citizens
of London, therefore it must have been either contem-
porary with or subsequent to the London charter, which,
as we have seen, was granted between Michaelmas, 1129,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF TIIK REIGN OF HENRY I. 333
and Michaelmas 1131. The 1130 Pipe Roll also proves
that the citizens of Norwich did not then hold their city
under any charter similar to that of London, and yet that
their charter was identical is also proved by its confirma-
tion by Richard I, wffich is almost word for word the same
as his confirmation charter to London.
It is not essential to the story of the Norwich mint that
1121-2 should be proved to be an error for the presumed
date, but the evidence of the coins themselves very strongly
suggests that the date was 1130 1131 (Michaelmas), and
very probably the charter was granted at the Court held
at Northampton on September 8th, 1131. Richard I's
charter confirms the privilege to the citizens of only
having to plead within their walls, but, as at London,
excepts from it "my moneyers and officers," hence the
original charter, as was the effect of that to the metropolis,
probably included the mint and the moneyers in the grant
to the citizens. By it, the status of the citizens was
changed from that of being mere lessees of a mint, subject
to a restricted number of moneyers, to that of absolute
ownership, as explained in the case of London, and so they
immediately revived the mint, doubled the number of
moneyers, and so far as we can judge, issued a prolific
coinage, for it was to their obvious advantage to turn it
to as much profit as they possibly could. Queen Adeliza
would no doubt join in the charter in consequence of her
rights in the firma, and afterwards, as Richard's charter
implies, the mint of Norwich probably regained its strictly
royal character.
Ruding, vol. ii. p. 200, quotes a record of the discovery
of coins of Henry I, whilst the walls of Norwich were
being rebuilt or extended, in the reign of Edward II,
and that " one pound of silver of that money was more
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. X X
334 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
in value by three pence, or three pennyweights, than a
pound of the then current coin." They were most likely
of type 255 (1131-1135), the last type of Henry, and
buried during the disturbances at Norwich early in
Stephen's reign. In any case they must have been later
in date than 1125 or they would not have averaged even
equally in weight to " the then current coin."
The mint was continued in every reign until the
accession of Edward I, and in later times it was revived
on one or two occasions.
COINS.
frALDENA ON NOB . rxENEI EEX 252
British Museum. Aid en from which we have
Halden and Haldane occurs in Domesday
as " Godwin-Halden," who held lands in
Norfolk. GODPINE coined at Norwich for
William I-II.
frAILPI : ON : NOKP ^riENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 5 specimens ; British Museum.
Ailwi continued to coin in Stephen's reign.
I<BALD[PINE] ON NOE . fiENEIEVS 255
Watford find. This moneyer seems to have
been removed to Thetford in the following
reign.
*[BALD]PINE ON NO . ^fiENEIEVS 255
Ben well Sale, 1849.
: ON : NOEWIE . frENEIEVS E 255
Engraved Withy and Ryall, ii. 24 (corrected
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 335
from EOL) ; British Museum ; J. Verity,
from the Boyne Sale, .1896. This name
occurs in Domesday under Kent.
& . OE : ON : NORWIE . hENEIEVS 255
Engraved Ruding, ii. 6.
KTOE . . NOEWIE ^fiENEIEV 255
F. A. Walters. The T is of course the die-
sinker's error for E, and it is interesting
inasmuch as it curiously supports the con-
tention on page 28 that written instructions
for the desired legends were supplied from
the local mints to the Aurifaber at London,
as, in the ordinary Court-hand of the day,
there was so little distinction between the
"fe = C and the "b = T that the lapsus calami
is readily apparent. This explanation should
be the key to some of our unintelligible or
blundered legends see also page 338.
ON NOE . IE *I\ENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; British Museum ;
Lincoln and Son. The moneyer continued
to coin for Stephen.
*ETSTAN N[0]E[P]IE *hENBI EEX A 253
Engraved Withy and Byall, ii. 13, but the
reverse legend is corrected from +ETVEI
O NEIE. [Compare the similar instance
of BISES on the same plate, explained on
page 117.] On the Norwich coins of
William I and II it was the rule, rather than
the exception, for the N in ON to serve also
for the N in the name of the mint, a custom
continued on the early types only of this
reign. As to this moneyer, see before.
336
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
^ETSTAN ON NOR 257
Phare Sale, 1834, corrected ; Sale, November,
1847.
^ETSTAN ON NOB 257
Sale, 1847.
OEJTSTAN . N N . . 267
Bari find.
fcETSTAN : ON : NO . ^TiENRIE .... X : IV
L. A. Lawrence. Obverse, a quatrefoil over the
right shoulder, as Ending, Sup. ii. 2, 6.
Reverse, pellets in the angles of the cross as
also on that illustration.
^ETSTAN : ON : NORP J<hENRIE VS REX AN IT
British Museum. PI. V., No. 10. From the
Marsham, 1888, and Montagu, 1897, Sales.
>{<ETSTAN : ON ... IV
Bindon-Blood Sale, 1856 ; Whitbourn Sale,
1869.
*ETSTAN 0>^N NORPIE IiENRI 258
A . Peckover. PI. VI, No. 5. Obverse, two
quatrefoils before the sceptre. Keverse,
fcN NOEPIE in the inner circle. Found
in ballast which had been brought from
Peterborough.
*EDST[AN] ON NOE ^hENRIEVS 255
L. A. Lawrence ; 22 grs. As to this moneyer,
fee above. The missing letters are supplied
fiom numerous readings on coins of the same
moneyer in the lollowiug reign.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 337
>IFRELI>E ON NOE *HENRI EE 254
L. A. Lawrence. From the Durden Sale, 1892.
*HOPORD NOEDI *HNRI ... 251
i
T. Bliss. Engraved Num. Chron., 1881,
PI. III., No. 1. From the Nottingham find,
1881, and the Toplis and Montagu collec-
tions. A HO FORD, probably this moneyer's
father, coined here for William I. The
ducal house of Howard is descended from
William Howard, of Wigenhali, Norfolk,
who rose to be Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas in 1297, and who, probably because of
the similarity of the name Howard to Here-
ward, was by the inventive genius of the
sixteenth-century heralds, folio wed to-day by
Burke, claimed as a descendant of Hereward
the Wake. But the existence of Howords
as royal moneyers of Norwich in the reigns of
William I and Henry I now tells us the true
origin and important status of the family at
the date of the Conquest.
*IHOPORD NORDE* !HENRI REX 254
S. Smith. The reverse legend is evidently
blundered, or, perhaps, twice struck, but
ON is sometimes purposely omitted, see
page 31, and the folio whig coin.
frHOPOED NORDE *HENRI EEX 254
E. T. Corfield. The for ON is omitted.
^HOPOED O NOEDPI *HENEI EEX 253
B. Roth. From the Montagu, 1897, Sale, 2.
DO NORDPI 253
Bergne Sale, 1873.
338 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
*OSB[EE]N ON NOE *hENEI EE . 252
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton ; J. Verity. 21 grs.,
from the Allen Sale, 1898. The name
appears at Thetford on coins of Ethelred II.
A Richard Fitz Osbern, probably the
EICAED on contemporary Norwich coins,
and son of this moneyer, held a fief from
Hugh Bigod in 1165.
. . . BEEN ON NOE 252
Whitbourn Sale, 1869.
>K>TEE : ON [NO]EPIE . I\ENEI . . S 255
Watford find, 2 specimens. OTEE appears
on Norwich coins of the Williams, and
OTEEEftE on the first type of Stephen. The
latter form probably stands for the Saxon
Otercbeld, i.e. Oter the childe, and means
either the eldest son of Oter = Oter junior,
or Oter the freeman or squire.
NOEDPIT ^HENEI EEX EN 253
British Museum. Engraved Hawkins, 253.
The E and T in the reverse legend were
perhaps transposed in the punching of the
die, but see a similar error p. 335.
ON ..... ^hEN . . EEX A IV
British Museum. This appropriation is doubtful.
ON : NOE . . *I\ENEIEVS 255
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
This moneyer coined also as StvlTEIE and
SIIvRIE for Stephen.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE KEIGX OF HKXRY I. 339
*SVNSMAN : ON : NOR [^hENjRIEVS : 255
L. A. Lawrence, 22 grs. ; Watford find. This
moneyer coined as SVNFMAN for Stephen.
*SVS . MAN ON NORP *hENRIEYS 255
Watford find, 3 specimens.
NORPI ..... IEVS 255
Sir John Evans.
J<VLFEhITEL ON NOB ^fiENEIEVS R 265
Trinity College, Cambridge. Mr. F. Jenkinson
has supplied the readings of the coins in the
Cambridge Museums. As to this moneyer
see before.
J<PILliEMAE ON NOR ><I\ENRI REX 252
S. Smith ; Loscombe Sale, 1855. The
moneyer's name is probably a contraction
for William fitz Hermer, or, as " William
the man of Hermer [? de Ferrers]" held
one house in Norwich in 1086, perhaps for
" Wills ho Herm " as written in Domesday.
J<PVLFRIE
See under Nottingham, pages 350-51.
. . IPOD O NORDP . >J<HENRI R . . 253
T. Bliss. Perhaps SIPOD or even HOPORD.
4< ...... NORPI I\EN ..... 255
C. M. Crompton Roberts ; Tyssen Sale, 1802 ;
Benwell Sale, 1849; Brown Sale, 1869;
Toplis Sale, 1890.
The coins of type 262 assigned by Hawkins to this
mint are of Northampton.
340
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
NOTTINGHAM.
SNOTINGAHAM, SNOTTENGSHAM, SNODENGHAM, NOTTINGAMIA,
NOTINGEHAM ; Domesday, SNOTINGEHAM ; Pipe Roll,
NOTINGEHAM.
Nottingham, or, as its Saxon name implies, " the place
of caves," first enters the pages of authentic history in the
Chronicle of Ethelwerd under the year 868, when the
Danes '"'measured out their camp in a place called
Snotingaham, and there they passed the winter, and
Burgred, King of the Mercians, with his nobles, consented
to their remaining without opposition." According to
the Saxon Chronicle, however, the invaders were besieged
there by Burgred, assisted by King Ethelred and Alfred
his brother, but without avail. In 922, Edward the
Elder came with his forces to Nottingham and " took
possession of the town, and commanded it to be repaired
and occupied as well by English as by Danes," and in
924 he returned and commanded a burg to be built " on
the south side of the river opposite the other and a bridge
over the Trent between the two towns." As Bridgford,
over the Trent, is mentioned in Domesday, it no doubt
takes its name from this, one of the earliest, if not the
earliest, of our recorded Anglo-Saxon bridges. But the
town now known as one of the five Danish burgs fell
into the hands of the Danes, and again, in 941, was
retaken by the Saxons under King Edmund.
1067? The Castle [probably the Saxon burh] and
County of Nottingham were committed to the custody
of Ralph, son of Hubert de Rye. (Marianus.)
1068. "The King then built a Castle at Nottingham,
which he committed to the custody of William
Peverell." (Orderic.)
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 341
1086. Domesday notes. In the time of King Edward
there were in the burg of Nottingham 173 burgesses
and 19 bondsmen. To this burg adjoined certain
lands and woods. " These lands were partitioned
amongst38 burgesses, andfrom the land tax and services
of the burgesses returned 75 shillings and 7 pence and
from two moneyers 40 shillings. Therein Earl Tostig
had 1 carucate of land, from which land the King
had sow, the two denarii, and the Earl himself the
third. When Hugh fitz Baldric the Sheriff came,
there were still 136 men, but now there are 16 fewer.
Yet Hugh himself built 13 houses on the land of the
Earl, in the new burg, including them in thejirma of
the old burg. The Trent fisheries and navigation,
the [Fosse] Road to York and the fosse of the burg
are referred to in detail. In the time of King Edward
Nottingham paid 18, now it pays 30 and 10 from
the mint. William Peverell has 48 houses of mer-
chants, 12 houses of horsemen [? Normans] and 8
bondsmen, and the King granted 10 acres of land
to him to make the pomerium. [Not an orchard as
hitherto rendered, but the right to clear the ground
for the space of a bow-shot around the castle walls.]
1107-10. William Peverell witnesses the King's charter
to St. Mary's, Bee, at Fishley, Norfolk. (Docs, in
France.)
1108. January May. Probable date of his foundation
charter of Lenton Priory.
1108-10. He grants the church of Eyam to Lenton and
witnesses the King's confirmation charter to Lenton
and to Cluny Abbey. (Monasticon and Docs, in
France.)
1 109. October 16. The King held a Council at Notting-
ham Castle. (Charter to Durham.)
1111. At Reading witnesses Henry's Charter to Colne
Priory. (Monasticon.)
1113. In Normandy witnesses Henry's charter to St.
Evroul at Rouen Castle. (Docs, in France.)
1114. January. Death of William Peverell I.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. William Peverell [II] of Notting-
ham accounts for 28 6s. 8d. for a plea of forestry
pays 11 13s. 4d. and owes 11 13s. 4d. He receives
the return of a plea of murder in the Risechve
[? Rushcliffe] " wapentake." The monks of Notting-
ham [? Lenton] are mentioned also "Adelma [widow
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES.
Y Y
3J2 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
of the first Peverell] as mother of William Peverell of
Nottingham." " Osgot, priest of Daimfeld [? Daffield]
owes 60 shillings on a plea of false pennies. Sweiu
of the Gate (de Porta) owes 100 shillings on a plea of
Ralph Basset " (the King's Justice).
1131. September 8. William Peverell witnesses the
charter to Salisbury at the great Council at North-
ampton. (Monasticon.)
Whether the mint of Nottingham was established by
Edward the Elder, when in 922 he rebuilt the town on
its recovery from the Danes, it is difficult to say, for with
one exception the names of the mints are omitted from his
coins, but it was certainly in operation during the reign
of his successor, Athelstan. Ethelred II's money also
bears the name of this mint, and it was continued under
his successors.
In the time of the Confessor we learn from Domesday
that the mint was allowed two moneyers who paid 40s.
between them, but in 1086 the Conqueror had increased
their firma to 10. This evidences the fact that it was
then a Royal mint, and as such its output was practically
continuous.
There are few Norman baronial names so familiar to
us as that of Peverell of Nottingham and the Peak, and
yet when we weigh what information we have of the family
it is remarkable that it should be so little. The writer
has dealt elsewhere with this subject [British Archaeologi-
cal Association's Proceedings, 1899, p. 273], and it is
sufficient here to say that the founder of the Nottingham
and senior English branch of the family was William
Peverell I, who was certainly not the natural son of the
Conqueror, as we used to be told he was, although prob-
ably a relative and perhaps a son, or son-in-law, of Queen
Matilda by her first marriage. From Domesday it
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 343
would appear that he held what was practically one-
third of the burg, and although he did not then hold
the tertius denarius of it, its subsequent grant to him
might almost be expected to follow as a natural sequence.
That he did obtain itfwe know, or at least have every
reason to believe, but when, it is difficult to say. The
Nottingham coinage during the reigns of the two Williams
does not help us to arrive at the date, for the output is
constant, and therefore, provided he remained in his
lordship, it would ma.ke no difference to the numis-
matic evidence whether the mint retained its royal
character or had been included in the grant of the town
to him.
It is, however, noticeable that throughout the reigns
of William I and II his name appears upon the charters
as merely " William Peverell," but in that of Henry I
the title "de Nottingham" is usually appended. This,
coupled with the facts that immediately upon the accession
of Henry the output of the mint assumes an intermittent
character, and the number of moneyers is throughout the
reign reduced to one, strongly suggests that the town of
Nottingham, including its mint, was granted to him upon
that occasion. This, at least, is certain, that between the
date of Domesday and that of the Lenton charter, 1108,
the Trent fisheries, attached to the burg, had passed from
the King to him, and that in 1152 the then Peverell held
the burg and castle of Nottingham as his fee.
But where was William Peverell between the years
11UO and 1107? His name does not appear upon any of
the English charters nor in the pages of the chroniclers
during this period, or at least so far as an almost exhaus-
tive search has disclosed. For the first time since its
institution, if we may accept the negative evidence of the
344 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
absence of any coins of types 251, 254, 253, and 256, the
mint of Nottingham is closed. Tradition tells us that he
joined the Crusades, and it is significant that when in
1107-1114 his name suddenly returns into our charters
it is usually accompanied by that of Earl Simon of North-
ampton until the death of the latter in 1109. It is almost
impossible to imagine that if Peverell had been in England
or Normandy he would not have been present at the
battle of Tinchebrai, and if present, that his name would not
have been recorded in the list of the principal combatants,
and yet history and charters alike are silent as to his
movements. It is true that there are two charters granted
in Normandy which bear the name of William Peverell,
but this was in all probability his cousin and namesake of
Dover; but if not, as their date is about the year 1103,
when Earl Simon joined the Crusades, they only tend to
prove the absence of "William Peverell from England
perhaps whilst upon his journey across Europe. All these
facts, when marshalled together, raise a structure of
probability that the three chief castellans and neighbours
of Mercia, Earl Simon of Northampton and Huntingdon,
Ivo de Grantmesnil of Leicester and William Peverell of
Nottingham, took the Cross and journeyed to Jerusalem
in 1102-3, one dying by the wayside, but the other two
returning after the great victory of 1106, and arriving
together, first in Normandy in the following year and later
in England, perhaps in January, 1108. This probability is
again supported by the parallel between Peverell and Earl
Simon, for just as the first act of Earl Simon, as a thank-
offering for his safe return, was to found St. Andrew's
Priory at Northampton, so that of William Peverell was
to found Lenton Priory at Nottingham. It is in this
foundation charter that the old initial S in the name of
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY T. 345
Nottingham is for the first time dropped. Its date has
been assigned to various years between 1100 and 1108,
but its true date must be late in 1107 or early in 1108 ;
one reason amongst others being that Earl Simon, who
witnessed it, did not return to England until late in 1107,
and Gerard, Archbishop of York, another of the witnesses,
died "before Pentecost," 1108.
That William Peverell was in England and at Henry's
Court at Reading in 1111 is clearly proved by the dated
charter to Colne Priory, and he would surely entertain
the King on his visit in October, 1109; therefore it is
probable that he resided at Nottingham from 1108 to 1112,
and coincidently with this residence, type 257 (1110-1112),
although the attribution of the coins is not quite beyond
question, appears from the Nottingham mint. He, how-
ever, crossed to Normandy in 1112-1113, for he wit-
nessed the St. Evroul charter at Rouen of that date, and
he died in January, 1114, so we have no more coins of
this mint during his lifetime.
He was succeeded by his son, William Peverell II, who
is mentioned in the Lenton charter. But as his name
would seem to be absent from our English charters in the
meantime, and as the Pipe Roll tells us that in 1130 he
had not yet paid off the instalments due upon his succession
to his Forestry rights over the Peak and in Nottingham-
shire, we may safely accept the evidence of our coins and
assume that he remained in Normandy until 1120 and
returned to England with the King in November of that
year. The mint re-opens with type IV (1121-1123), and
also gives us types 265 (1126-1129) and 262 (1129-1131),
and during the issue of the latter type the Pipe Roll proves
that Peverell was within his lordship.
The two consecutive entries in the 1130 Roll that
346 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Osgot, priest of Duffield, and Swein of the Gate [of
Nottingham], had been amerced, the former in sixty
shillings for false pennies, and the latter in one hundred
shillings on a plea of Ralph Basset, the King's Justice,
probably refer, in Osgot's case, to a fine levied by the
Exchequer upon him to make good certain payments
made by him in debased or light-weight money (see
page 8), but in that of Swein to an amercement or tine
levied upon him as moneyer. His name, Swein of the
Gate, suggests that the mint, as was provided by
Ethelred's Institutes of London (page 278), was at the
town gate, and he was, of course, the S[PJEINE on type
262 (1129-1131); but his must have been a very minor
offence, for when the mint was reopened in Stephen's
reign we find him again the Nottingham moneyer, which
could not have been the case had he suffered the customary
penal punishment for false coining.
But after type 262 (1129-1131) the coinage is again in
abeyance, for the plentiful type 255, the last of the reign,
seems to be absent from Nottingham. In September, 1131,
"William Peverell witnessed the Salisbury charter at
Northampton, and that is the last we ever hear of him.
To prove that he died before the accession of Stephen
in 1135 is not difficult, for the "William Peverell de
Nottingham " who witnessed that King's Charter of
Liberties, as already a baron early in 1136 (see Geoffrey
de Mandeville, p. 263), was the same whom Orderic, in
1138, calls " the young William, surnamed Peverell,"
and whom King Stephen addresses in a charter to Lenton
as William Peverell " junior." Hence, to speak of the
Peverell, who was concerned in the Lenton charter of
1108, some thirty years afterwards as "the young
William " would be impossible. In view, therefore, of the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 347
negative evidence of the closing of the Nottingham mint
in 1131, and the affirmative evidence of the death of
William Peverell II at some time between that date and
1135, we may venture ^ to associate cause with effect and
assign its date to the close of the year 1131, thus
accounting for the cessation of coinage at Nottingham.
In January, 1880, one of the most historically interest-
ing of our finds of English coins occurred during exca-
vations for cellars in Bridlesmith Gate, Nottingham. The
writer, being in Nottingham at the time, was, by the
courtesy of the late Mr. Toplis, enabled to examine the
bulk of the find, and since then Mr. Wallis, of the Not-
tingham Castle Museum, Mr. S. Page, and many mem-
bers of the Numismatic Society, have submitted for his
inspection what, he believes, practically represent the
remainder of the hoard. It contained about 150 coins
of the reign of Stephen, in which period its special
interest is centred, and 23 of Henry I ; namely, one
each of types 251 and IV, probably then only of
intrinsic, not current value, and 20 of type 255 (1131-
1135). The hoard itself furnishes curious and definite
internal evidence that its date of deposit was at some
time between June and December, 1141, but as the evi-
dence of it is outside the province of this treatise, perhaps
the reader will, in this instance, accept the dictum. But
the coins of the find present a peculiar and unique feature
by which most of them may be identified in the trays of
a collection at sight. They have been subjected, at some
period of their existence, to an intense heat and are, in
consequence, blistered and cockled to such an extent as,
in many instances, to assume a saucer-like form. This
was the more noticeable at the time of their discovery, as
many have since been straightened, and not a few broken
348 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
in the attempted operation, but a glance at the 100
specimens carefully preserved by Mr. Wallis at the
deservedly popular Museum of Art at Nottingham will
amply satisfy the curious in this respect.
Such was the hoard as we found it in the nineteenth
century. The following is the contemporary account
of its loss in the twelfth century, and it is odd that no
one has hitherto connected ths two incidents.
"Before the Nativity of St. Mary, September 8th, Robert,
son of King Henry, instigated by Ralph Paynell, took with him
the Knights of the Earl of Warwick, and with those he drew
out of Gloucestershire, and a great body of common soldiers,
made a sudden attack on the town of Nottingham, and, finding
there was no force to defend it, commenced plundering it, the
townsmen from all quarters taking refuge in the churches.
One of these, who was reported to be a wealthy man ; having
been laid hold of, was led tightly bound to his house that he
might be forced to give up his money. The man conducted the
freebooters, over greedy for spoil, into a chamber underground
where all his household wealth was supposed to be stored. But
while they were intent upon pillage and breaking open doors and
locks, he cunningly slipped away, and gaining the chambers, and
then the hall, closed all the doors behind them and fastened
them with bolts. He tben set fire to his house and consigned
the buildings and all his riches, together with the robbers, to
the flames. It is reported that more than thirty men who were
in the cellar perished by the fire, and some say that it spread
through the whole town and burnt it to the ground ; for the
knights and the whole army swore that they were guiltless of
having set it on fire. Thus the whole place was consumed, and
all who could be taken outside the churches were carried into
captivity ; pome of them as far as Gloucester. The rest of the
common people, men, women, and children, who had fled to the
churches, not dariug to come forth for fear of being taken by
the enemy, nearly all perished as the churches fell a prey to
the raging conflagration. . . . Thus Nottingham was laid in
ruins ; a most noble town which, from the time of the Norman
Conquest of England to the present, had flourished in the
greatest peace and tranquillity, and abounded in wealth of all
kinds and a numerous population." (Continuator of Florence ;
Forester.)
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 349
The chronicler rarely gives dates, and some of the
events amongst which the incident is inserted occurred
in the year 1140, but that date is improbable, as the Earl
of Warwick had not then joined the cause of the Empress,
and recent historians Kave proved its true date to be Sep-
tember, 1141, when William Peverell III having been
taken prisoner at the battle of Lincoln, and Nottingham
therefore having " no force to defend it," the Earl of
Gloucester carried out the raid during the siege of Win-
chester. This exactly coincides with the date of deposit
of the hoard as previously mentioned.
Further comment upon this story is scarcely necessarv,
but as it could be suggested that the burning of the town
might account for the loss of several similar hoards, it
may be pointed out that a hall and a cellar, or crypt, to a
private house, even in Nottingham, " the City of Caves,"
must have been at that date unheard of. Therefore, when
we remember that the then moneyer, Swein, was described
in the 1130 Pipe Roll as " of the Gate," that the treasure
was discovered in excavating in the Bridlesmith Gate,
where, by the way, tradition says the old mint was, that
the gate, according to the Institutes of Ethelred II, was
the place of coinage, and finally that the coins bearing
Swein's name (about one-sixth of the total number) were,
unlike most of the rest, as fresh as from the die, it is
not difficult to believe that " the freebooters, over greedy
for spoil," as might be expected, selected the official of
the mint and his stock lor the first objects of their
plunder.
Although the moneyers of Nottingham are recorded
in the 1156-7 Pipe Roll as still owing a debt or fine of
43 marks of silver, the mint seems to have been finally
closed upon, and by, the outlawry of the last of the
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. % *
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Peverells in 1154, when the burg and the Trent fisheries
reverted to the King.
COINS.
. . HE : ON : SNOT ^hENEI ... AN IV
British Museum. The H is no doubt intended
for N, and the name probably ALPINE.
IAL ...... SNOTEN *hENRIEVS E 265
British Museum.
*ALARIE ON SNOTN 265
Durrant Sale, 1847. As this reading of the
moneyer's name was long before Mr.Grueber,
in the Montagu catalogue, revolutionized
the art of cataloguing, it is not reliable.
ON : SNO : ^hENBlEVS E 262
J. Verity. As to this moneyer, see before.
. . P . . NE ON : SNO : *hENRIEVS E 262
Watford find. Mr. Rashleigh read the P as O.
PVLPRIE ON SNOR ^hEJvRIE RE : 257
British Museum. Fig. G, page 58. PL VIII,
No. 5. Engraved Hawkins, 257. This
moneyer coined in the previous reign as
tfrPVLFEU: ON SNOTJNE. Nevertheless,
it is with some hesitation that this coin is
removed from its old appropriation to Nor-
wich.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 351
*PVLFRIE ON . . OE *hENRI EE 257
Engraved Ruding, Sup., ii., 2, 4. Probably
the above coin. From the Sharp collection
and Wallsop finds.
Tyesen Sale, \ 802. 36*
OXFORD.
OXNAFORD, OXANFORD, OXENFOBD, OXINEFOBD, OXONIUM ; Early
Saxon, ORSNAFOROA; Domesday and Pipe Roll, OXKNK-
FORD.
According to Roger of Wendover, who, however, was
but a thirteenth-century chronicler, there was already a
City of Oxford in the early Saxon days of the legend of
St. Frideswide, and from the superstition attached to that
legend, under the year 1111, he tells us, "the Kings of
England have always been afraid to enter this city, for
it is said to be fatal to them and they are unwilling
to test the truth of it at their own peril " ; but this,
however, is not strictly accurate, unless it is copied from
some ancient record of a date prior to the Conquest.
Perhaps its severance from the personal influence of the
Saxon Kings may, in a measure, account for the total
omission of Oxford from the pages of Bede or any of
our early chronicles, for we find no mention of it until,
under the year 910, one of the MSS. of the Saxon
Chronicle records that, on the death of Ethelred of
Mercia, Edward the Elder took possession of Oxford.
In 1009 the Danes "took their way to Oxford and
burned the city," and four years later they compelled
the townsmen to submit and deliver hostages. Here
352. NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Harold I was elected King by the Witan, and here, in
1040, he died.
When and by whom the great University was founded
are matters outside the scope of these pages.
1071. King William builds Oxford Castle and entrusts it
to Robert D'Oilli.
1086. Domesday notes. In the time of the Confessor
Oxford paid tax of 20 and 6 sextaries of honey, and
to Earl Algar 10. When the King called out his
forces 20 burgesses went with him, or paid 20 to
exempt all. Now Oxford pays 60 by number of 20
[pennies] to the ounce. There are 243 houses pay-
ing taxes, and in addition 478 so waste and destroyed
as to be unable to pay. The walls of the city are
more than once referred to, and provision is made for
their repair by the burgesses. A list of those bur-
gesses who were tenants in capite or freeholders in
the city i. ., who held houses of the King for their
lives (' habuit dum vixit ") is given. Under " Terra
Regis " the county of Oxford pays a treble fir ma noctis,
that is 150 ; from the increase (" augmento," but
?atm/io),25by weight; from the burg, 20 by weight;
from the mint, 20 [by weight] in pennies [credited
at] 20 to the ounce ; also certain other contributions.
1090. The Abbot of Abingdon makes a canal to improve
the navigation of the " Thames " to Oxford.
1111. At an enquiry held at the house of Harding at
Oxford the canal tolls are formulated.
" Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, gave a site in Oxford,
where the body of the virgin St. Frideswide reposes
(Christ Church), to a canon named Wimund, who
instituted a community of canons there, under regular
discipline, and was himself their first Prior." (Wen-
dover.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Robert d'Oilli II, castellan of
Oxford, has but recently succeeded to his possessions,
probably after a long minority, for he is still paying
large succession fees. He is sheriff, and owes 400
marks of silver for the gersoma. The work of
building the New Hall is evidently in progress, for
Humphrey the mason receives 7 12s. Id. The court
has lately passed through Oxford. Thirteen preben-
daries are supported out of the county returns. The
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 353
fisheries and the mill are mentioned, as also are the
guilds of the cloth-weavers and cordwainers. The
city contributes 13 17s. Od. in auxilium, but 10 is
remitted in pardon to the burgesses by the King's
writ.
1133. The King beld his Easter Court in the New Hall
at Oxford. (Huntingdon.)
As Mr. Nicholson, of the Bodleian Library, remarked
to the writer, the earliest extant evidence of the existence
of Oxford is to be found upon the coins of Alfred the
Great struck at " OESNAFOEDA." It was certainly a
royal mint in those days, and as such it remained through-
out the Saxon period.
In the reign of the Confessor its output was consider-
able, but during the troubled time of the Conquest Oxford
suffered so severely that two-thirds of the city, according
to the evidence of Domesday, were devastated. This was
probably in 1068, for one of the MSS. of William of
Malmesbury confuses Oxford with Exeter in the account
of the Conqueror's punishment of the latter city, and so
it suggests that the two incidents were perhaps concurrent
and similar. Hence afterwards the mint was never so
prolific as in Saxon times.
As at Lincoln and Norwich, Oxford being a royal mint
we naturally look for the names of some at least of its
moneyers amongst the tenants in capite given in Domes-
day. One instance very clearly proves the suggestion
given under Lincoln, page 266, that the title monetarius
was not customarily adopted where the person was, other-
wise, well known. It is that of Swetman. He is the
only one in the list who is styled monetarius, and it is
obviously because there is another of the same name who
is described in it as " the other Swetman."
3-34 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Domesdaj Extracts from the List of Tenants /-^""i 68 ^ " th * ,
in capite in Oxford.
William I.
Smewine, one house, which pays
nothing ....
Brictred and Derman, one house of < T,T->-rnmT>Tm
16 pence ... .1
Svetman, monetarius, one house free, "\
returning 40 pence . . . Svet- f gp ETM ; AN
man has two houses on the (
Wall returning 8 shillings . )
Godwine, one house free .
Vimar, one house free
Alwi, one house free .
Such was the constitution of the mint of Oxford until
the accession of Henry I, although the number of
money ers was being gradually reduced. Upon that
event the first type of the new reign, 251 (1100-1102),
was issued as before, but from its date, so far as we know,
the mint of Oxford must have been entirely closed until
the year 1131.
For almost thirty years no money seems to have been
issued from this, a royal mint, and we can only endeavour
to account for it by comparisons with the contemporary
history of other towns. Domesday has told us that the
county had to return certain fixed payments, which in-
cluded ,20 from the mint, and as Oxford itself was the
only mint town within it, the moneyers of that mint
were of course responsible for the payment, whether it
was in actual operation or not. Hence, if for some cause
or another the King withheld his writ authorising coinage,
it would merely be a deprivation of a privilege without
loss to his Exchequer, for the citizens would still have to
make good the 20. We have already seen that at Dover
and Lewes, where the burgesses held their towns upon the
custom of defending the shores against an invasion, the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 355
coinage was similarly stopped during the issue of the
same type, 251 (1100-1102), because they failed in their
duty and deserved the King for Duke Robert. Therefore,
as Oxford's duty was to supply 20 burgesses when the
King called out his forces, we may almost assume that
when Duke Robert landed at Portsmouth in the summer
of 1101 and marched on Winchester, the citizens closed
their gates against Henry and declared for th^ Duke.
England was then almost equally divided in the question
of the succession, and Oxford, after suffering so much at
the hands of the first Norman King, would not be too
ready to supply her burgesses for the defence of his son,
even though the choice but lay between the two brothers.
Henry's obvious retaliation would be the punishment of
the principal citizens and the withdrawal of their privi-
leges. Such would include the coinage, and so the mint
would remain dormant until revived by writ or charter.
That something of this sort did occur is almost certain,
because in the 1129-30 Pipe Roil, when the coinage
was still in abeyance, we have the entry that the city
contributed 13 17s. in auxilium, but of it was remitted
" in pardon by writ of the King to the burgesses of Oxford
10." The entry is under the " nova placita" which
refer to the accounts for the half-year from Easter to
Michaelmas, and so the 10 may be the current half of
the 20 referred to in Domesday as the contribution of the
mint ; but that it refers to the firma of the mint itself is
proved by the similar cases of Colchester, Dorchester, Nor-
wich, Shaftesbury, Tarn worth, Thetford and Wallingford,
all of which were in that particular year (1129-1130),
closed, or partially closed, mints. We have, therefore,
some documentary evidence at least to support the apparent
numismatic evidence that the mint was in abeyance from
356
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE
some time during the issue of type 251 (1100-1102) until
that of type 255 (1131-1135), the alpha and omega of
King Henry's types.
At the date of the Pipe Roll the New Hall at Oxford
was in course of construction, and 7 12s. Id. was spent
upon its masonry. In 1133 it was completed ; so Henry,
no doubt to celebrate its opening ceremony, held his
Easter Court within it. This, as we have seen, was a
mark of honour, and it would be highly improbable that so
favoured a city would at that time, at least, not be in the
full enjoyment of all its privileges. In 1129-30 he had
already returned either the half or the whole of the firma
of the dormant mint to the citizens, and therefore to re-
grant the privilege of coinage was really to his own
advantage, for he would no longer be petitioned to make
any such return. Hence the mint is at last re-opened,
and type 255 (1131-1133) is issued by three moneyers at
Oxford, whose coins are well represented to-day in our
cabinets.
To reintroduce the art of coining, there is little doubt
that the King sent his London moneyer KAPVLF to
Oxford, for he had coined at London in several of the
types until and including 262 (1129-1131), when his
name disappears from that mint, and simultaneously
appears at Oxford on type 255 (1131-1135), where he
remained during Stephen's first, but finally returned to
London to coin in one of his later types. On his last
type (262) of Henry's reign in London, his name appears
in three forms, RAPVLF, EAWLE, and KAVF, and in the
following type at Oxford (255) as EAPVLF and BAWLF,
for no doubt he furnished his own instructions to the
King's nurifaber for the legends on his dies. In the 1130
Pipe Roll there is an entry under Oxford that Ralph
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 357
fitz Araalr paid a fee of half a mark of gold for his land,
because he had traversed against William of London i.e.,
for the land at Oxford which he had acquired from or ex-
changed with William of London [? William Travers, see
page 312] and so, as we have the coincidences of the name
of Ralph of London appearing for the first time at Oxford
on the type for the following year, arid that of William ap-
pearing for the first time at London on the same type, it
would almost appear as if Ralph the moneyer was Ralph
fitz Amalr, and had paid the fee to obtain his qualifica-
tion for the office as a tenant in capite at Oxford, by
exchanging his" own house at London for that of William
at Oxford, who, no doubt, after instruction, succeeded to
his office in London, and struck the WILLELMVS ON LVN
coins. As the fee was payable after the exchange, the latter
would then rightly be described as William of London.
If this is correct, it would not only further explain the
return of the 10 to the citizens, as the revival of the
Oxford mint was then promised, but would also fix the
date of the qualification of the moneyer immediately prior
to the issue of type 255 (1131-1135). Such a qualifica-
tion must have been necessary, or Domesday's list of the
tenants in capite would not have included the names of all
of the six moneyers then coining at Oxford. Ralph is
again mentioned in a list of the King's burgesses of
Oxford, in the transcript of Stephen's charter to Christ
Church, as "Radulfus Hons," which latter word is
probably a corruption of Mons monetarists (Monasticon).
Ruding quotes the mention of " five shillings from the
land of Eadwin the moneyer," in an Abingdbn charter of
1116, and of " land held by Godwin and Brihtric, money-
ers," in the foundation charter of Oseney Abbey, 1129.
The first which, by the way, Mr. Spicer corrects to " five
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 3 A
358 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
shillings from the land of Edwin the moneyer and his
brother " is merely the description of the land which was
still known as the land of Edwin the moneyer and his
brother, although the former, and therefore both, had
lived in the days of the Confessor and was the EADPIXE
of his Oxford coins. This was the usual practice in legal
documents at that date and it has survived until modern
times, although we sometimes prefix " now or formerly,"
and in the Pipe Rolls, for instance, we have ' the land of
William Peverell " long after he had disappeared from
history. The second instance, "land held by Godwin
and Brihtric," is precisely similar and almost proves the
case, for in the charter the correct reading is " terras quas
tenuerunt." Hence the " Godwine " and " Brihtred "
of Domesday and on the coins of William I have, in the
course of copying, forty-three years afterwards, become
" Godwin and Brihtric/' and are similarly repeated in an
Oxford charter of two generations later ! See, also,
page 435.
The mint was continued until the accession of Edward I.
COINS.
fclEGLNOD ON OXNE ^.HNEIEVS EE 251
British Museum. An Ailnoth, as a former
citizen of Oxford, is mentioned in the
Oseney charter of 1129.
^EAPYLF : ON : OXENN *r\ENEIEVS : 255
J. Murdoch. PI. VII, No. 9. From the
Montagu Sale, 1896, 3. As to this
moneyer, see before.
.... VLF : ON : . . N 255
Brice Sale, 1881, 2 2s. Od. ; Sale, June, 1885.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 359
*RA.WLF OX OXEN *hEN . . EVS 255
British Museum.
4.RAWLF . . OXEN
Watford find.
*hEN..EVS
255
VVLF ON ...
H. P. Smith Sale, 1886.
255
*SABIM : ON : OXENN
frhENRIEVS
255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; L. A. Lawrence,
22 grs. Domesday mentions three tenants
in capite at Oxford named Segrim, and a
Segrim, citizen of Oxford, is mentioned in
the foundation charter of Oseney, 1129,
whose property was, or had been, "juxta
murum."
. . . M : ON : OXNE
E 255
Engraved Withy and Ryall, ii., 25, but cor-
rected.
*SWETMAN : ON : NA
See page 318.
255
frSWETMAN ON ... R * . NRIEVS 255
See page 318.
Hoare Sale, 1861 ; Sainthill, 1870, and Sale, May,
1870. 255
300 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
' PETEEBOROUGH (NORTHAMPTONSHIRE).
BURGH, BURH, BURUH, BURCH ; Early Saxon, MEDESHAMSTEDE ;
Domesday, BURG ; Pipe Roll, BURGUM.
" In the time of King Edgar, Bishop Athelwold
restored the Abbey of Medeshamstede, in the town now
called Burg, which Bishop Sexwulf founded in the reign
of Wulf here, King of the Mercians," says Orderic ; but
according to the Peterborough version of the Saxon
Chronicle, it was founded by King Peada and Oswy the
brother of King Oswald. Notwithstanding its destruc-
tion at the hands of the Danes in the ninth century it
subsequently, to quote the last-mentioned authority,
" waxed so greatly in land and in gold and in silver that
it was called the Golden Burg."
1070. " The Monastery was pillaged and burnt in Here-
ward's rising, when so much gold and silver, and so
much treasure in money, apparel, and books were
taken, that no man can compute the amount." (Sax.
Chron.)
1086. Domesday notes. The extensive possessions of
the Abbot of Peterborough, which include "the
town which is called Burg," are set out in detail,
but throw no light upon his rights of coinage.
1102. "In Pentecost week there came robbers from
Auvergne, France, and Flanders, and they broke into
the Monastery, and carried off much treasure of gold
and silver, crosses, chalices, and candlesticks." (Sax.
Chron.)
Michaelmas. Abbot Godric is deposed by the
London Synod. (Florence.)
110H-4 ? Matthias elected Abbot, but he only held the
Abbey one year.
1107. Arnulf, Prior of Canterbury, elected Abbot. (Sax.
Chron.)
1114. Raised to the see of Rochester.
John of Sees succeeds.
A. NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 3G1
1116. August 3. " The whole of the Monastery, with
all the houses, excepting the chapterhouse and the
dormitory, was burnt, and the greater part of the
town also." (Sax. Chron.)
1118. Foundation of the present cathedral.
1125. October 13. , Death of Abbot John. (Sax. Chron.)
1127. Henry of Poitou, cousin to the King, appointed
Abbot. An unpopular appointment. (Sax. Chron.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Richard Basset, the sheriff,
returns the account of the " pisteslai " of the Abbey
at 25 marks of silver. Hugh de Waterville accounts
for 8 6s. 8d., and Ralph de Lamara for three ounces
of gold for succession to the personal effects of the
late abbot. Anchitel, priest of Peterborough, ac-
counts for 10 marks of silver for his award, which he
was not able to contest ; he pays 40 shillings, and
owes 7 marks of silver.
1132. Abbot Henry, after being expelled by the monks,
is finally deposed, and Martin, Prior of St. Neots,
appointed in his stead. (Sax. Chron.)
In the year 963 King Edgar commenced the restoration
of the desolated Saxon monastery, and in 972 he granted a
charter to it which not only confirmed all its ancient
privileges, but included certain additional benefits.
Amongst the latter was " one moneyer in Stamford "
(Sax. Chron. ; Monasticon). Hitherto it has been assumed
by all historians that because that part of Stamford which
lies to the south of the river Welland, known as St.
Martin's, or Stamford Baron, belonged to the monastery
in Saxon times, " the moneyer in Stamford " and the mint
were within it. But upon comparing the charters of
Wulfhere, Edgar and Thurkil Hoche, it seems doubtful
whether Stamford Baron was then included within the
possessions of the monastery, for whilst the church lay in
ruins and its rights dormant, Edward the Elder had built
a royal burg (Stamford Baron] " upon the south side of
the river/' and one would therefore have expected it to
have been specially referred to in Edgar's charter if it
362 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
were intended to pass, whereas, on the contrary, he cer-
tainly implies that Stamford and its market then remained
the King's.
On the other hand, the grant of " one moneyer in Stam-
ford " was, as we shall presently see, page 373, exactly
on a par with the subsequent grant to Reading Abbey
of " one moneyer in London," or as already noticed, page
327, with the right, recorded in Domesday, of the Bishop
of East Anglia then located at Thetford to " one
moneyer in Norwich." Therefore as the Abbot of Read-
ing never had any territorial rights in London, so, con-
versely, the territorial right, if any, of the Abbot of
Peterborough in Stamford had nothing to do with his
grant of the moneyer. In all these cases, the King having
several royal moneyers in the principal city or town,
allocated one of them to the see or monastery as an
endowment, and to have granted the privilege of a
moneyer to either Peterborough or Reading at the monas-
tery itself would have been an empty benefit, for the
abbeys were then only in course of erection and had
neither an exchange nor even a resident population. The
case, too, of the Bishop of East Anglia, no doubt dates
from the time when the see was located at Elmham, and
a moneyer there would have little profited him.
Edgar's charter was duly confirmed by his successors
Edward the Martyr and Ethelred II (Monasticon) ; but on
his accession, Canute had granted East Anglia to Thurkil
the Earl (Sax. Chon.). Hence it was Thurkil's duty to
confirm the rights of the monastery, and so amongst the
records of the Abbey we find
*' Turkilus Hoche [? the Hold] dedit Sancto Petro Coling-
ham et monetarium in Stanford et terrain ibidem
existe parte aqure." (Monasticon.)
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY 1. 3b'3
This is, no doubt, extracted from his confirmation
charter so far as the moneyer is concerned, but the grants
of Colingham (North Collingham in Nottinghamshire) and
Stamford Baron seem to be additional endowments, and
only now to come into the abbey's possession. In 1021
Thurkil was outlawed, so Canute himself confirmed the
Abbot's privileges, and we have also the record of a similar
charter of Edward the Confessor. (Monasticon.)
Thurkil's grant of Stamford Baron to the Abbot, so far
from inferring that the mint was on that side the Welland,
as Ruding and others have assumed, proves exactly the
reverse, for we" know that there were then about a dozen
money ers at Stamford, and if he granted the southern
burg it would, had the mint been within it, have included
not " one moneyer at Stamford " only, but the mint and
all the twelve. The moneyers, as at London, were no
doubt located at the principal gates, and these would be
upon the earthworks of the -old town on the north side
of the river.
As explained on page 30, it follows that all the money
struck by the Abbot's moneyer must bear the name of
Stamford as its mint, and the contemporary identification
of his money would of course be apparent from the
moneyer's name upon it. But it might happen that a
King's moneyer who had been coining in a certain type
was, owing to the death of his ecclesiastical colleague,
transferred to the Abbot, and continued to issue the same
type for him, or, again, upon the appointment of a new
Abbot the moneyer of his predecessor might similarly con-
tinue the current type. In either of these cases, it will be
patent to all, that unless the Abbot was prepared to accept
the responsibility for money issued before it was under his
own control, some mark upon the new money was necessary
364 XVMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
for identification, and the same necessity would arise when
a moneyer succeeded another of the same name. This was
readily effected by the addition of a small ornament or
device to the existing die.
Such is a very simple explanation of an old but unsolved
problem, and if it is similarly extended to the changes in the
tenure of, or upon the succession of the Earls and Barons
to, the grantees' mints as now proffered in the case of the
accession of the spiritual lords, all those small ornaments
and devices which are so frequently found upon our early-
coins need no longer be treated as mere eccentricities or
incomprehensible mint marks, for they were as necessary
as they were ingenious. The spiritual lords usually chose
some ecclesiastical symbol such as a small cross or annulet
their ring of investiture.
" Lay down thy cross and staff,
Thy myter and thy ring I to thee gaff."
If the reader will refer to the Num. Chron. N. S. xx.,
PI. XI., Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 ; Ruding, 21, 7, and Hilde-
brand and Brit. Mus. Cat. under " Stamford," he will find
numerous examples of the cross and annulet upon the coins
of the Stamford mint ; which coins no doubt represent
some of the money of the Abbots of Peterborough. The
annulet, or ring of St. Peter, was the symbol of investiture,
and as such was especially applicable in the cases of St.
Peter's at York and St. Peter's at Burgh.
Such was the position at the date of the Conquest.
But now we approach a somewhat difficult problem. Since
the days of Canute the royal mint of Stamford had been
gradually declining, and although there would appear to
have been six moneyers in office at the commencement of
the Confessor's reign, there were only two or three at its
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 365
close. This decrease is the more marked when we enter
upon the Norman series of the coinage, for, after correcting
some confusion which has arisen owing to the similarity
of the contracted forms of the names Steyning and Stafford
to Stamford, and after allowing, under one or two types
only, for the succession of a new moneyer or moneyers
during the period of issue, it is impossible to believe that
in any of the reigns of William I, William II, or Henry I
there was more than a single moneyer in office at Stam-
ford. The question, of course, follows : Did that moneyer
represent the King or the Abbot of Peterborough ? The
reply must be the Abbot. In the first place the coinage is
of too intermittent a character to represent that of a royal
mint. In the second, the Abbot certainly retained his
right to a moneyer at Stamford, for King Stephen granted
the usual confirmation charter in which it was specially
mentioned, and which again was confirmed by a Bull of
Pope Eugenius III in 1146 (Monasticon), and Mr. W. C.
Wells has two Stamford coins of that reign from the same
dies, the first of which has a plain sceptre, but upon the
second a bar has been subsequently cut across the staff of
the sceptre in the die to convert it into a cross, as above
explained. And in the third, the mint is not mentioned
in Domesday, and therefore as no return from it is
recorded for the King it must, if a royal mint, have been
included in the firma of the town, but although the town
paid customs to the King, its gabulum and thelonium
belonged to the Abbot of Peterborough. On the other
hand, if the single moneyer was the Abbot's, the return of
the mint did not concern the Crown, and so was, properly,
omitted from the Survey.
Why this change was made must remain a matter of
surmise. It may be that the same advance in trade, popu-
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 3 B
366 XTMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
lation and prosperity which induced Remigius to transfer
the See of Dorchester to Lincoln caused the King to
transfer the Stamford royal moneyers to that city and
the coins of Lincoln of William I and the enormous firtna
of its mint as recorded in Domesday somewhat support the
suggestion. Or it may be that as the Monastery of
Peterborough was pillaged and burnt, and lost so much
treasure " that no man can compute the amount " in the
troubles arising out of William's invasion, the King, to
recompense the Church, handed over to the Abbot the
whole mint of Stamford and all its profits by withdrawing
the royal moneyers. This, perhaps, is the more probable
explanation in view of the subsequent parallel instance of
Bath, see page 110.
On the accession of Henry I Godric was Abbot of Peter-
borough, and type 251 (1100-1102) is in evidence from
the Stamford moneyer. At Michaelmas, 1102, commenced
the great war of investitures between .Archbishop Anselin
and King Henry. The Archbishop claimed that the King
had no power to appoint to a benefice without the sanction
of the Church. He, therefore, called a synod at London
in September, 1102, and revoked the appointment of no
fewer than nine Abbots, of whom Godric was one. To this
Henry not only refused to submit, but is recorded to have
shown marks of special favour to the deposed Abbots, and
he ultimately banished Anselm. The position, therefore,
at Peterborough was that Godric remained the temporal
Abbot, but Matthias was elected spiritual Abbot against
the will of the King, hence it follows to reason that as
Stamford was a royal burg its moneyer remained Godric's,
and so types 254 (1102-1104) and 253 (1104-1106) appear
from the mint. Meanwhile Matthias, who only held the
Abbacy, under the spiritual appointment, for exactly
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 367
twelve months, died on October 19th in either 1103 or
1104 ; for although the Saxon Chronicle gives it as 1103,
it would make the date of his election, i.e. when " he was
received in procession as Abbot," immediately follow the
synod, which was unusual, whereas other authorities state
that in 1107 Henry had held the abbey in his own hands
i.e. through Godric for three, not four years.
In 1107 Henry had to submit to the Church, Anselm
was recalled, and in August, " amongst others who then
received abbacies, Arnulf, Prior of Canterbury, obtained
that of Peterborough." (Sax. Chron.) This appoint-
ment of one of Anselm's Priors of Canterbury may
be assumed to have been made grudgingly and of neces-
sity, and it is not to be expected that the King would, if
he could avoid it, confirm the Abbot's temporal privilege
of a moneyer at Stamford. This is borne out by the
fact that we have no coins bearing the name of Stamford
upon any of the types during Abbot Arnulf's tenure of
office, namely, from August, 1107, to September 13th,
1114. (Sax. Chron.)
"Soon afterwards," says the same authority, " at the
request of the Archbishop of Canterbury [Ralph], the
King gave the Abbacy to a monk of Sees, named John.
And soon after this the King and the Archbishop sent
him to Rome for the Archbishop's Pall. This was done
on the llth before the Kalends of October." Thus,
immediately upon his appointment, John of Sees sets out
on a journey to Rome, from which he did not return
until June 27th, 1115. (Sax. Chron. ; Florence.) Then,
no doubt, he received his confirmation charter from King
Henry and type 264 (1116-1119) is issued from the
Stamford mint. Abbot John died in 1125, and, mean-
while, we know nothing of his history nor have we, so far
368 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
as is yet ascert aired, any coins representing the last five
years of his life.
In 1127 the King granted the abbey to Henry of
Poitou sometimes styled of Anjou " forasmuch as
he was his kinsman," and " thus vexatiously was the
Abbacy of Peterborough given away at London between
Christmas and Candlemas, and so Henry went with the
King to Winchester and thence he came to Peterborough
and there lived even as a drone in a hive." (Sax. Chron.)
He at once revived the coinage at Stamford and issued
types 265(1126-1128) and 262(1128-1131). On June
23rd, 1131, he was expelled by the monks, who " for five-
and-twenty years had never known a good day." (Sax.
Chron.) A few lines later the same authority refers to
them as " the wretched monks of Peterborough, standing
in need of the help of all Christian people," and the
observant reader will notice that this period of twenty-
five years, namely, from the year 1106, represents the
only time in the history of the abbey when its mint at
Stamford lay almost dormant.
But in 1132 " the King granted the abbacy to a Prior
of St. Neots named Martin, and he came to the monas-
tery, right worshipfully attended, on St. Peter's day."
(Sax. Chron.) He issued type 255 (1131-1135) and
from this time forward the Abbots of Peterborough
regularly continued their mint at Stamford until its
close in the reign of Henry II.
Concerning the moneyers. It will be remembered
that the Saxon Kings assigned one of their own
moneyers at Stamford to the Abbots, and therefore his
position would be that of a royal moneyer who had to
account to the Abbot exactly as we shall see under
Reading, Henry I assigned one of his royal moneyers of
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 369
London to that abbey. Hence the position of the Stam-
ford money er remained similar to that of a royal money er
as described under Lincoln, London, and elsewhere.
There was no objection to his being a priest or monk,
for, as we have seen in Ethelred II's Institutes of Lon-
don, he would have subordinates under him, and we know
that several London moneyers were admitted into the
Church. In Domesday we read that Lewine had lately
held a house in Stamford " to all custom except geld,"
and on the coins of the Confessor and of William I, but
previously to 1086 only, is the name of LEFPINE or
LEOFPINE.
Until Mr. L. A. Lawrence, in Num. Chron., iii., 17, 302,
demonstrated that a series of Saxon and Norman coins
reading BEBDESTA, BIIEDI, BAED, &c., as their place of
mintage were coins of the Barnstaple mint, it was
erroneously thought that the coins of the Conqueror
reading BIIBDI = BABDI represented Peterborough. See
page 103.
COINS.
ISSUED FROM THE STAMFORD MINT UNDER THE CHARTERED
PRIVILEGES OF THE ABBOTS OF PETERBOROUGH.
.frABEIL ON STEN *HIENEI E 254
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University;
PI. II, No. 8. The moneyer coined here
in the previous reign as ON STNF.
*ABLIL ON STNFE ^HENEI BEX 253
British Museum. Fig. C, page 49.
370 "NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE
frSODRIE ON STEN *H3NEI EEX 253
J. Verity. From the Marsham, 1888, and
Montagu, 1896, Sales.
fcGODRIE : ON : STAN .frhENRIEVS 264
J. Murdoch. From the Carbery Evans
collection.
.frHEIRMAN ON STN .J.HNRI REX I 251
British Museum. The moneyer coined here in
the previous reign.
*HIR[M]OR ON . TA>E * HENRI RE 253
Spink and Son.
Hi[IRMOR] ON STANEFOR ^rxENRIEVS R 265
Bodleian Library. The moneyer was pro-
bably son of the above.
.... MOR : ON : STANFOR HhfiENRIEVS R : 262
Watford find. 16 grs.
*LEYSI : ON : STAN ^hENRIEVS : 255
Lincoln and Son. This moneyer continued to
coin here in the following reign.
frLEV.. .. S..NE *h..RIE.S 255
Watford find.
4-MORVS : 0[N] STANE : .frhENRIE . S R : 264
British Museum. Engraved Withy and By all,
ii., 14; Snelling, i., 19; Hawkins, 264 and
Num. Chron., x., 21. The moneyer's name
is suiely not what Morns means, but
probably a contraction of Morinns.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 371
ON STAN 262
Late A. E. Packe. The moneyer would
probably be hIRMOR.
For the coin of type 265, attributed by Mr. Sharp and
in the Whitbourn and Montagu catalogues to this mint,
see under Thetford, page 427.
READING (BEBKSHIRE).
REDDINGES, RADINGES, RADINGIA, RADYNG, READINGAS ; Domes-
day, REDINGES ; Pipe Roll, RADING.
Reading, like Oxford, does not appear upon the pages
of history until long after it had become a town of im-
portance, for when, under the year 871, it is first men-
tioned in the Saxon Chronicle, its possession was the cause
of one of the most sanguinary of the many contests between
King Ethelred and the Danes. It was burnt by the latter
in 1006 (Florence) and its recovery seems to have been
but slow, for at the date of Domesday it was a compara-
tively small town, and it was not until the foundation of
the great abbey in the first quarter of the twelfth century
that it again flourished in wealth and importance.
1086. Domesday notes. The King holds Reading in lord-
ship. King Edward held it. It pays tax for 43 bides.
In the time of King Edward it was worth 40, now it
is worth 48. The King has in the burg 28 houses,
returning 4 3s. Od. for all customs ; nevertheless, he
[the sheriff] who has it pays one hundred shillings.
The corn mills and fishery rights are mentioned, and
also the hospitium.
1111. King Henry, here, granted his charter to Colne
Abbey. (Monasticou.)
372 NFMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1121. "At Reading some monks began to establish a
monastic order under the holy regulations of St.
Benedict," but elsewhere Westminster states that the
King " built the abbey from its foundations, and
during his lifetime had laid the first stone in the
presence of Stephen, afterwards King, and of many of
his barons."
1123. April 15. Hugh, Prior of St. Pancras (at Lewes),
appointed Abbot (Westminster).
1126. On the death of Henry V, Matilda, the Empress,
brought with her to England the sanctified hand of St.
James. This the King placed in the Abbey of Reading,
which he enriched with many valuables. (Hovedeu.)
The relic was still here at the Dissolution. See the
Reading terrier.
1130. Abbot Hugh having been elected Archbishop of
Rouen, Ansger, Prior of St. Pancras, was appointed to
Reading. (Florence.)
1135-6. Christmas. Here Henry's remains were interred
with great ceremony.
In the reign of Ethelred II a royal mint was estab-
lished in the burg of Reading, but shortly afterwards,
owing no doubt to the devastation of 1006, it was dis-
continued. After the gradual recovery of the town the
mint was revived in the days of the Confessor, but was
finally abolished at the Conquest. It is therefore with
the later ecclesiastical coinage that we are now con-
cerned.
Although the abbey was commenced in 1121 and its
first Abbot appointed in 1123, it was not until 1125 that
the King granted the foundation charter. This charter
is dated, and apart from the fact that Henry spent the
whole year in Normandy, it bears internal evidence of
having been granted in that country. It is witnessed by
seven Norman ecclesiastics, and Florence of Worcester
tell us tbat
" After Easter the bishops elect Simon [of Worcester] and
Sigfred [of Chichester] with the Archbishops William and
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 373
Thurstan and a Cardinal of Rome named John [of Crema] came
[from Normandy] to England and Sigefred was consecrated .
on the 12th of April."
Hence, as every one of these names appears as that of a
witness to the charter, it is quite clear that its date is
earlier than April 12th. We may, therefore, almost assume
the true date to be on the occasion of the Easter Court,
probably at Rouen, on March 29th, 1125.
After reciting that he " had built the new monastery at
Reading," Henry grants to its Abbot amongst many other
privileges a mint and one moneyer at Reading, viz.
" Cum moneta et uno monetario apud Radingiam." (Monas-
ticon.)
But the grant of a mint and moneyer to an abbey still
in the early stages of its erection was but an empty
favour, and so we find that the precedent of Peterborough
was followed and the King by writ authorized Roger,
Bishop of Salisbury, as " Chief Justiciary of all England,"
in his own absence to allocate one of the royal money ers
of London, who should coin and hold an exchange there,
for and on behalf of the Abbot. This, Bishop Roger did,
and a transcript of his charter is extant ; but, curiously
enough, Ruding has credited it to a Bishop of Salisbury
of the reign of Henry III. It is of sufficient numismatic
interest to deserve a verbatim report.
" Carta R. Episcopi Far. de uno Monetario in London.
' ! R. Sar. Episcopus et regni Angliae procurator sub domino
nostro rege Henrico A. Vicecomiti et omnibus ministris regis
tarn praesentibus quam futuris de London et de tota Anglia
salutem. Sciatis quod ex praecepto domini nostri regis Henriri
donavimus Hugoui abbati et monachis Rading. unum Mone
tarium in London, ubi et monetam faciat et cambium teneat
et omnia eicut cseteri monetarii regis, Edgarum scilicet, qui
VOL. I. FOURTH SKR1ES. 3 C
374 M MISMATIC CHRONICLE.
concedente rege ita liber et quietus et absolutus cum domo et
familia sua ab omni placito et omnibus causiset consuetudinibus
manebit in manu abbatis et monachorum Rading. ac si maneret
Radingis. Quicunque etiam post Edgarum, vel loco ejus, in
moneta positus apud London per manum abbatis et mona-
cborum Kadiug. fuerit, eodem modo liber, et quietus, et absolutus
cum domo et familia sua apud Lond. manebit in manu abbatis
et monachorum Bading ac si maneret Rading.
" Ipse vero Edgarus et quicunque post eum monetarius
fuerit, solvet pro inoueta abbati et monacbis Rading. omnes illas
causas et consuetudines quas caeteri monetarii Lond. solvunt
domino regi, et cambiet in terra abbatis Rading. sicut ei abbas
concesserit, tarn Edgarus quam ille qui post eum vel pro eo
abbas seu monachi Rading. fecerint monetarium, quod eis con-
cessum est facere in perpetuum." (Monasticon.)
The essential conditions to enable us to accurately
determine the date of this charter are not wanting. It
refers to Hugh the Abbot, and therefore must be between
April 15th, 1123, and May 8th, 1130, when Ansger was
appointed in his stead ; but as it is necessarily subsequent
to the foundation charter it cannot be earlier than 1125.
The fact that it is granted by Roger, Bishop of
Salisbury, instead of by the King himself, shows that
Henry was then in Normandy, for he had "committed
all England [during his absence] to the care and admin-
istration of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury " (Sax. Chron.),
which again narrows the date. Finally it is addressed
to " A," as Sheriff of London, and in this we recognise
the Alberic de Vere, Sheriff of London, to whom William
Fitz Otho's charter of 1128-1129 was addressed (see page
97). Another charter of the same period is addressed to
Alberic as Sheriff of London, and is granted by the King
at Barnham, near Arundel, Sussex, whilst, no doubt, on
his journey either to or from Normandy. Hence we may,
with some degree of certainty, assign the Reading charter
of Roger of Salisbury to the date of the King's absence
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 375
from England, between August, 1127, and July, 1128,
when the Bishop was acting as Regent of the kingdom.
Incidentally it should be noticed how clearly this charter
proves the correctness of Mr. Round's theory of the later
date of the London charter, for it could not have operated
if the London moneyers then had under that charter the
right to refuse to plead without the city walls.
Having ascertained that the Abbot of Reading had thus
received the privilege of coinage at London, in or about
1128, one would expect to find it exercised in the type
immediately following viz. 262, for the years 1129 to
1131, but as yet EDGAE'S name has not been found upon
it. The explanation lies in the actual date of Abbot
Hugh's election to the Archbishopric of Rouen, for
although Robert de Monte gives the date of his consecra-
tion as September 14th, 1130, he was actually elected in
1129 or possibly late in 1128. This is clear from the fact
that his election was confirmed by Pope Honorius, who
himself died February 14th, 1130. Therefore, as the
archbishopric was vacated by the death of Geoffrey in
November, 1128, which was immediately after the grant
of the moneyer to Abbot Hugh, we may assume that the
negotiations, pending, for the latter's preferment to Rouen,
naturally rendered it not worth his while or expense, for
these privileges were costly luxuries, to establish a
Reading coinage at London.
But upon the installation of Abbot Ansger the moneyer
EADSAR is established, and we find his name in plentiful
evidence on the coins struck at London in type 255
(1131-1135). From the fact that there are no annulets or
other ornaments upon Eadgar's coins we may assume that
he had never coined, in that type at least, for the King,
and therefore that all his coins were struck under the
376
NUMISMATIC CH KOX ICLE.
authority of the Abbot. As his name does not appear in
Stephen's reign, it is probable that he died or retired from
office at some date between 1131 and 1135. The Abbot
would then, under the powers of his charter, appoint "per
manum Abbatis et monachorum," another of the London
moneyers to represent him at that mint. Following the
rule as explained under Peterborough, page 263, if he
appointed a moneyer who had already been coining at
London in type 255, it would be necessary for some
ornament or mark probably an annulet, the symbol of
the Abbot's investiture to be cut upon the dies, so that
the new coins, which would still bear the name of London,
could be distinguished from the old, and the responsibility
for both thus identified. This we find exactly the case
upon the coins of one moneyer, and of one moneyer only,
namely BALDEP1N, who at first uses plain dies in type
255, but later and judging from their percentage, towards
the close of the type a small annulet is cut upon them, and
so the subsequent coins were thus distinguished as the
Reading money. Perhaps, in this originated the Abbot of
Reading's power to order certain ornaments or impressions
upon his coins, which is referred to in the writ of 1338
quoted on page 28. When the customs of heraldry
became more general in this country, it was only natural
that the annulet of the Abbot in the reigns of Henry I
and Stephen should give place to the escallop shell, the
arms of the abbey, in the reigns of the Edwards.
Later, when the population and wealth around the
abbey rendered it a question of no importance whether
the mint and exchange were at London or Reading,
the moneyer was removed to the abbey itself. But the
monetary powers of the Abbot were finally withdrawn in
the reign of Edward III.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 377
COINS.
ISSUED FEOM THE LONDON MINT UNDER THE CHARTERED
PRIVILEGES OF THE ABBOT OF READING.
: ON : LVN) 4-I\E . . IEVS : 255
Watford find, 3 specimens ; L. A. Lawrence.
As to this moneyer, see before.
: ON : LVNDE : ^.hENRIEVS : 255
Watford find, 6 specimens ; A. A. Banes.
: ON : LVND *I\ENRIEVS 255
British Museum ; L. A. Lawrence ; late
J. Toplis ; Lincoln and Son.
^.JEDGER : ON : LVNDE : ^hENRIEVS 255
S.Page.
.J.2ED6AR ON LVND ^.hENRIEV 255
L. A. Lawrence. This is, perhaps, the only
instance of the use of the Saxon D so late
as the date of this type.
4.2ET6AR : ON : LVND : .frftENRIEV . 255
N. Hey wood. Mr. Hey wood has constantly
contributed information upon this period of
the coinage.
^BALDEPIN ON : LVN : ^hENRIEVS 255
J. Verity. Obverse, a small annulet upon the
right cheek. As to this moneyer and pecu-
liarity, see before.
*BAL ON LVN . hENRIEVS 255
A. H. Sadd. Similar.
378
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
f. BALD .... ON : LVN . . . NEIEVS : 255
W. Minton. Obverse, a small annulet upon
the right shoulder and upon the nose. Bald-
win continued to coin in the following reign,
and was succeeded by SM7RPINE.
RIC.
"RIG" is given in Ruding's list of Henry's mints, and
as the name "ETVEI" appears in that of the money ers,
his authority was, doubtless, the coin of type 253, reading,
obverse, *fiENRI EEX A. Reverse, *ETYEI ON EIE,
engraved Withy and Ryall, ii. 13. Following the rules
proffered under ATLE and BISES, pages 102 and 117, and
bearing in mind that at the date of type 253 the Norwich
coins used the form NOB, &c., instead of ON NOE, it is
evident that the engraver had before him an indistinct coin
of that mint reading -f-ETccTAN NOEIE. A comparison
of the engraving referred to, with this legend, will disclose
how he has correctly read most of the letters, but has
accepted fragments of the letters CQ lor V, A for E and
N for I, and omitted the second T and 0, for which last
letter he has, however, left a space. See also page 335.
ROCHESTER.
ROFECEASTER, RoVECESTEIA, RoFFA, RoFTTM, HJROFECEASTER,
HROFECESTEB ; Domesday, ROVECESTER ; Pipe Roll,
ROVEO'.
The earthworks and antiquities of Rochester disclose a
complete sequence of Roman, British, Saxon, Danish, and
Norman occupation, but evidences of an earlier foundation
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 379
are doubtful, and it is significant that in Sir John Evans*
exhaustive work The Coins of the Ancient Britons
Rochester is one of the few early cities in which no dis-
coveries of pre- Roman coins are recorded. The foundation
of its See dates from \he days of St. Augustine, and it
became one of the most important of the Saxon Bishoprics.
In 676 the city was laid in ruins by the Mercians, and in
839 the inhabitants were slaughtered by the Danes.
Under the year 885, the Saxon Chronicle records that the
Danes unsuccessfully besieged Rochester and wrought a
burh there, which may be the existing mound known as
Boley Hill.
1067. King William created his half-brother Odo, Bishop
of Bayeux, Earl of Kent.
1082. The fall of Odo, who was imprisoned until the
King's death.
1086. Domesday notes. "In the time of King Edward
the City of Rochester was valued at 100 shillings.
When the Bishop [Odo, as Earl of Kent] received it,
it was worth the same. Now it is valued at 20,
nevertheless he who holds it [the King's Sheriff] pays
40." At Aylesford the Bishop of Rochester holds
as much land as is worth 17s. 4d., in exchange for
the land on which the Castle [of Rochester] stands.
1088. Bishop Odo, having revolted against Rufus, seized
and defended Rochester, but the city was compelled
to surrender and, finally, Odo was banished.
1100. King Henry, upon his accession, grants a confirma-
tion charter to Gundulf, the then Bishop of Rochester.
(Monasticon.)
1108. March 7th. Death of Bishop Gundulf.
August llth. Ralph of Sees is appointed Bishop.
1114. April 26th. Bishop Ralph is translated to the
Archbishopric of Canterbury.
August 15th. Arnulf, Abbot of Peterborough, is
appointed Bishop.
1124. March. Death of Bishop Arnulf.
1125. May 23rd. John, Archdeacon of Canterbury, is
consecrated Bishop.
1126. "The King, also, by the advice of his barons
380 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
granted to the Church of Canterbury, and to William
the Archbishop and to all his successors the custody
and constableship of the castle of Rochester, to hold
for ever ; with liberty to make in the same castle a
fort or tower as they pleased, and have and guard it
for ever ; and that the garrison stationed in the castle
should have free ingress and egress on their own
occasions, and should be security to the Archbishop
for it. (Florence; Forester.)
1130. Pipe Boll notes. Three shillings and fourpence is
spent on repairing the bridge at Rochester in prepara-
tion for the visit of the King. The Bishop accounts
for 60 marks of silver for the manor of Hedenham
[which he held under charter from Rufus in return
for building, or rebuilding, the castle, i.e., the fortified
enclosure not the keep at Rochester. See Geoffrey
de Mandeville, p. 338] . Also 60 marks that he need
not plead against Fulco de Foutibus save by the
estoppel of his ecclesiastical charters. [This is the
probable meaning of a very obscure passage.]
1130. May 7tb. "The City of Rochester was destroyed
by fire while the King was there, and un the day
following the new Church of St. Andrew was conse-
crated by William the Archbishop." (Florence.)
According to Hawkins, p. 113, there seems to be ground
for assigning various coins of Ecgberht bearing the name
of St. Andrew, the patron saint of Rochester, to the mint
of this city, and Mr. Grueber, in Num. Chron. 1894,
p. 40, throws further light on the subject, by assigning to
Rochester certain coins of his predecessors Coenwulf,
Beornwulf, and Ceolwulf I. These attributions are sup-
ported by the fact that at the date of King Athelstan's
Law the mint was already of sufficient importance to be
allowed three moneyers two for the King and one for
the Bishop. From the reign of the latter King to that of
William I its coins are fairly represented in our cabinets.
William I created his half-brother Odo, Bishop of
Bayeux, Earl of Kent, and Domesday tells us that Odo
" received the City of Rochester." Thus, as we have
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 381
seen under Bath, p. 110-111, Colchester, p. 162, and
elsewhere, such a grant of a city carried with it the King's
mint, and therefore two of the three moneyers, mentioned
in Athelstan's Law, were transferred to the Earl, but the
third remained the privilege of the Bishop.
On the fall of Odo in 1082, the earldom was escheated,
and therefore the right to the two moneyers fell into
abeyance, and so remained until about a century later,
when they were re-established upon their original status
as royal moneyers. Hence, at the date of Domesday
1086 the King had no interest in the mint of Rochester,
and so it is not scheduled in the Survey. But Gundulf,
Bishop of Rochester, afterwards the favourite of Rufus,
continued to exercise his privilege of the third moneyer.
On King Henry's accession in 1100, Gundulf received
his confirmation charter and type 251 (1100-1102) is
in evidence to-day that he continued his coinage at
Rochester. But from that date until about a hundred
years afterwards we have no coin bearing the name of
Rochester upon it. If we had no records of English
history but our coins we should erroneously infer that
Gundulf died in 1103, and that with him the episcopal
right to a moneyer at Rochester ceased to exist. It is
certainly clear that, after him, no Bishop did exercise the
privilege at Rochester, but that it was not continued after
Michaelmas 1102 until Gundulf s death, March 7th, 1108,
is curious. Perhaps types 254, 253 and 252, which repre-
sent those years, may yet be forthcoming, but a study of
the history of the closing years of the aged Bishop offers a
possible explanation; for, in 1103, he seems to have
virtually retired from public life and probably neglected
his right of coinage. Orderic perhaps hints at this when
he tells us that the King " through Bishop Gundulf,"
3 p
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES.
382
NUMISMATIC CH.ROXK LE.
raised Ralph of Sees to the See of Rochester," which can
only mean that the Bishop himself arranged the appoint-
ment of his own successor, who was, perhaps, already his
deputy. Of ten charters in the reign of Henry I, which
bear Gundulf's name, nine were granted between 1100
and 1103, but the tenth, the foundation charter of St.
Andrews, Northampton, is dated the eighth year of King
Henry's reign, so Gundulf was still the nominal Bishop.
We can, however, quite understand that after the two
secular moneyers were discontinued, the influence of
the Church of Canterbury would be brought to bear
against the continuance of another ecclesiastical mint
so near to her own, and when we notice that in 1102-3
Wulfwine the then moneyer at Rochester, who had
but just succeeded .^Elstan, was transferred to Canterbury,
we may almost take it for granted that some mutual
arrangement was arrived at, by which the Bishop's
moneyer and privilege were removed and absorbed into
the archiepiscopal mint, even as the Castle itself was
predestined so soon to be granted to the Mother Church.
Ruding, quoting a MS. note by Mr. North, tells us
that Gledwine and Robert were moneyers at Rochester in
the reign of Henry I, and, on the authority of the Textns
Roftensis, that
" Geldwine and Robert were then moneyers here. The
former of these persons granted a house, &c., to Bishop Ernulph
and the monks of St. Andrew (Rochester) on condition that ho
Bhould be received into that house [church]."
This is the usual error, as explained under Oxford, page
358, caused by land being described in later confirmation
charters under its original description, just as in the 1130
Pipe Roll, the item concerning the bridge of Rochester is
entered under " the land of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux,"
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 383
although thirty years had elapsed since his death.
Geldwine's original grant is, however, thus recorded in the
Monasticon, but without any date being assigned to it
" Geldewine the moneyer gave his house adjoining the ceme-
tery of the monks."
He was, without doubt, the GELDEJ7INE whose name
appears upon Canterbury coins of the reign of Edward
the Confessor, and was, therefore, a moneyer coining at that
city who held property in Rochester, or was it, also, at
Canterbury ?
This again supports the probability that the Bishops of
Rochester had, as in the similar instances of the Abbots
of Peterborough and Reading, the alternative privilege of
transferring their moneyer by the King's writ to the
mint of the larger city and, it is suggested, this is what
really happened when coinage at Rochester was discon-
tinued in 1102-3, as it would not only account in the above
passage for the name of Robert being given by Mr. North
as a Rochester moneyer, for we find his name on the
Canterbury coins of the last type of Henry I, but also for
the issue of one or two types at Canterbury during the
period of the exile of Archbishop Anselm.
The royal mint, as previously mentioned, seems to have
been revived for a short period at the end of the twelfth
or at the beginning of the thirteenth century.
COINS.
*IELSTAN ON EOF *HNRI EEX 251
B. Roth. From the Montagu Sale, 1886,
3 15s., and the Addington collection.
JELSTAN is a contraction for Athelstan,
and both forms appear on the Rochester
coins of Rufus.
384 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
ON EOF 251
Cuff Sale, 1854, from theDimsdale Sale, 1824 ;
Chaffers, 1857. Perhaps the previous coin.
ON ROFI tfrHNRI REX N 251
L. A. Lawrence. 21 grs. PI. II. No. 3. From
the Boyne Sale, 1896. As to this moneyer,
see before.
>J<PVLFPII<E ON ROFI !<HNRI REX N 251
British Museum. Probably from the Tyssen,
1802, Sale.
iPYLFPINE ON ROFI I<HNRI REX N 251
Dymock Sale, 1848. From the Rich collec-
tion.
The specimen of type 257, attributed to this mint in
the Phare Sale, 1834, is a Norwich coin.
ROMNEY.
A coin of type 262, reading, Obverse *frh . . RIEVS R,
and Reverse -f-PVLF . . D : O. RVII, was assigned by Mr.
Rashleigh to this mint in his account of the Watford
find. His description of the coins was written fifty-two
years ago, and it is so uniformly accurate that this is almost
the only correction now called for. The reading, if com-
plete, would doubtless be -KPVLFPARD : ON : LVN, and
the mint London, for a coin from, probably, the same die
has the L in LVN so blurred as to almost resemble R.
See under London, p. 312. There is no evidence that the
mint at Jlomnev was in operation at so late a date as the
reign of Henry I.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 385
ST. EDMUNDSBURY (.SUFFOLK).
SsYNT-EDMUNDR-BlRI, BuRG-SANCTI-EDMUNDI, S. EDMUNDS-
BURG ; Domesday, SANCTUS EDMUNDUS and ETMUNDUS ;
Pipe Boll, SANCTUS EDMUNDUS.
St. Edmundsbury or, as it is now called, Bury St.
Edmunds, stands upon the site of a Roman station, but it
was not until Edmund, King of East Anglia, chose it as
a royal burg, that it attained any notoriety. Hence its
name, which subsequently, upon his canonization, assumed
its present form. In 903 a monastery was founded here
in his honour, which, after being enriched by King
Athelstan, received, probably from Edgar, a grant of the
burg itself, for under the year 1014, Florence of Worces-
ter tells us that Sweyn, the Dane, exacted an enormous
tribute from the burg, " a thing which no one had dared
to do since the town was given to the church of the
martyr Edmund." Canute, however, fully atoned for his
father's sacrilege by showering wealth and possessions
upon the monastery, until, in rank and importance, it was
only second to that of Glastonbury.
1086. Domesday notes. In the time of King Edward
B[aldwin] the Abbot held, on behalf of the monks,
118 men with full power to give and sell their land,
also 2 bondsmen under [? each of] them. The town
was then worth 10, now it is worth 20, and has
[land] in length a mile and a half, and in breadth as
much. Now there are 38 knights, both Norman and
English [who render knight's service], and under
[? each of] them 22 bondsmen. Now, in all, there
are 342 houses.
1100. Robert, the son of Hugh, Earl of Chester, is
appointed Abbot. (Orderic.)
1102. Michaelmas. At the London Synod, Abbot
Robert is deposed, and the monks immediately
appointed Robert, Prior of Westminster, as Abbot.
(Florence.)
386 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1107. "This year died Robert, Abbot of St. Edmunds
bury." (Sax. Chron.)
1114. Nov. 1. Aldbold the Jerusalemite appointed.
(Monasticon.)
1119. His death. (Orderic.)
1121. Anselm, nephew of the late Archbishop of that
name, appointed Abbot. (Monasticon.)
1123. Accompanies William, Archbishop of Canterbury,
to Rome, and visits the King's court in Normandy
upon his return. (Orderic.)
1125. In Normandy, witnesses the Charter to Reading.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The Abbot is in England, and
with the Abbot of Ramsey is contesting a plea
against the Bishop of Ely.
According to Orderic and our early charters, the
ancient name of this town was Beorhtric's worthe or
Beorhtric's Burg ; hence it probably owes its origin to
Beorhtric, King of East Anglia, circa 850-55, and, doubt-
less, some of his coins, and of those of his successors,
Eadmund and Ethelstan II, were struck here.
The passage already quoted from Florence tells us that
the burg had been granted to the Abbot of St. Ed-
mundsbury long before 1014, and our coins suggest that
this occurred in the reign of Edgar. We have already
seen, on page 230, how he encouraged the burgs in East
Anglia, and we may almost assume that the charter by
which the burg was granted to tbe Abbot was similar to
that which he gave to the Abbot of Peterborough, re-
ferred to on page 361, and in which he included the
privilege of a moneyer.
We have, moreover, coins of his reign bearing the
name of this mint, and of his successors, Edward the
Martyr and Ethelred II. But in the time of tbe latter
Sweyn's raid, in which, the monastery and town were
almost destroyed, no doubt stopped the coinage, and we
have no further examples of it until Edward the Con-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 387
fessor came to the throne. That the privilege was
entirely confined to the Abbot is demonstrated by the
fact that during the whole of this period only one
moneyer at a time coined at the mint, and that such
moneyer was his is proved by the following confirmation
charter granted by Edward the Confessor to Abbot
Baldwin upon his installation in 1065, viz.,
"Edward King gret Aylmer Bisscop and Toly and all mine
Theynes on Est Angle frendlike. And Ic kithe ihu Thaet Ic
habbe unnen Baldewine Abbot one MUNETERE with innen
Seynt Edmundr Biri, also frelike on all thing to habben also
me mine on hande stonden ower on ani mine burgh aldre-
frelikest. God se inn alle frend." (Monasticon.)
Domesday corroborates the story, and shows that the
burg, and therefore the mint, remained in the possession
of the Abbot, Baldwin, who in 1071 received from Pope
Alexander II " a pastoral staff and ring," and lived until
1097-98.
The following paragraph, taken from the introduction
to Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey, Rolls Series, 1890,
unconsciously explains the deadlock at which the affairs of
the mint must have arrived during the early years of the
reign of Henry I. It should, however, be pointed out
that Abbot Robert was one of the numerous illegitimate
offspring of Earl Hugh who are mentioned by Orderic,
for he left but one legitimate son.
" In 1100 Henry I gave the abbacy to Robert, the son of
his cousin Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester. This seems to have
been a bad case of the invasion of the ecclesiastical patronage
by the secular power . . . With regard to this and similar
appointments, St. Anselm, then Archbishop of Canterbury,
appealed to Rome. Herbert, Bishop of Norwich, took this
opportunity of reviving the claim to the religious superiority
over the convent of St. Edmund which had been made by
Arfast, his predecessor. . . . The attempt did not succeed ; bat
388 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
in 1102, at a council convened by St. Anselm, Robert, with
several other Abbots, was deposed from office. Another Robert,
a monk of Westminster, was then elected by the convent and
administered the Abbey with abbatial powers during five years.
All this time he was not regularly consecrated to the office,
doubtless because the King refused to recognise the appoint-
ment and withheld the temporalities ... In 1107 the
opposition of the King having been apparently overcome,
Robert was consecrated Abbot by Archbishop Anselm on the
feast of the Assumption (Aug. loth), but died about a month
afterwards."
From 1100 to 1102, therefore, coinage at St. Edmunds-
bury, by Abbot Robert (I), was possible, although scarcely
probable, and a coin of type 251 (1100-1102) was de-
scribed as of this mint in the Tyssen Catalogue of 1802,
but its present location has not been traced.
It will, however, be noticed how exactly the story of
St. Edmunds, as given above, corresponds with the con-
temporary history of Peterborough, the only difference
being that in the one case the rejected Abbot of Peter-
borough was still enabled to exercise his grant of the
temporalities outside the precincts of the Abbey itself,
because his mint was within the King's burg of Stamford ;
but, in the other, the Abbot when ousted from St.
Edmundsbury, was shut off entirely from his mint within
its walls, and therefore, as the King refused to recognise
the now Abbot chosen by the monks, and " withheld the
temporalities " from him, coinage there was impossible, and
so types 254 and 253 are absent.
But on the 15th of August, 1106, the King, says
Florence, " had a meeting with Anselm, the Archbishop,
and they came to terms of peace and concord on all
matters upon which they had differed." Therefore
Henry granted the writ which is quoted by Ruding as
follows :
.4 NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 389
" A writ to Herebert Losinga, Bishop of Norwich [as Spiritual
Lord], to Roger Bigot [as the King's Administrator of East
AngliaJ, R. Passelawe [as Sheriff of East Anglia] and Otho
Goldsmith, of London [the cuneator] ; in which it was stated
that the King granted that S. Edmund should have his moneyer
within his vill, with all th,e privileges of a mint, in like manner
as he had it in the time of the King's father, and in like manner
as the King's brother had granted it to him by his writ." See
page 27.
Hence type 252 (1106-1108) now appears at St.
Edmundsbury. In 1 LOT Abbot Robert died, and for seven
years the abbacy remained vacant, and consequently the
mint was dormant. Late in 1114 Aldbold, the Jeru-
salemite, was appointed, and held the monastery until his
death in 1119, but, as yet, no coins representing this
period are forthcoming. It may be, that the explanation
is that Henry, still smarting under his defeat in the
matter of the investitures, was not content with having
retained the revenue of the monastery for seven years,
but never sanctioned the monks' appointment of Aldbold
and continued to withhold the temporalities. This sup-
position is supported by the fact that after the death of
Aldbold, it was not until two more years had elapsed that
the King appointed a successor, and meanwhile he con-
tinued to retain the revenue of the monastery, and the
coinage was necessarily in abeyance.
From the appointment of Abbot Anselm in 1121, how-
ever, the differences between the King and the monks of
St. Edmund seem at an end, for we read of the Abbot
attending the King's court, and we find his name as a
witness to the royal charters. The mint, therefore, is re-
opened, and type IV (1121-1123) is in evidence before
us. But in 1123 Anselm accompanied the King to
Normandy, and was still there in 1125, when he witnessed
the charter to Reading, hence type 258, which represents
VOL. 1. FOURTH SKRIES. * K
390 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
those j'ears, is absent from our St. Edmundsbury coins.
From 1126 to the close of the reign, however, the Abbot
was in England, and consequently types 265 (1126-1128),
262 (1128-1131), and 255 (1131-1135) are all present in
our cabinets.
It will be noticed that in the subjoined list certain
coins are now given to this mint which have hitherto
been assigned to Sandwich. The reasons for this correc-
tion are as follows : There are coins of the following
reign of Stephen, which, although reading ON : SAN,
nevertheless bear upon their face certain curious evi-
dences that they were struck at St. Edmundsbury.
Therefore, when we observe that some of Henry's coins
read ON : SANTI EDM we are justified in assigning any
contraction, of that form of the name, to the same mint,
and, further, when we find such coincidences as
GILEBEKT ON SAN and 6ILEBEET ON EDMVN ; 60DEIE
ON SAN and 60DEIE ON SANTIE ; GODEIE ON SANT and
60DEIE ON S.EDM in Henry I's reign, and similar
coincidences in that of Stephen, when, in one case, the
same obverse die is used to both forms of the reverse
legend, the correction seems to be assured.
The Abbots of St. Edmundsbury retained their privi-
lege of coinage until the reign of Edward III.
COINS.
^.ADALBOT : ON SAN *rENEI EE 252
H. M. Reynolds. 22 grs. PI. VIII. No. 3
From H. P. Smith Sale, 1886.
frADALBOT ON SAN 252
Murrell Sale, 1886.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 391
frGILEBERT : ON . . N ,j,hE .... EX : IV
L. A. Lawrence. This spelling of the moneyer's
name does not occur elsewhere in Henry's
reign.
frGILEBERT ON EDM *hENRIE : 255
Lincoln and Son.
frGILEBERT ON EDMVN ^fxENRIEY . 255
Watford find.
.J.GILEBERT ON SAN . IiENRIE : 255
Watford find ; A. A. Banes. It will be noticed
that this unusual form of the obverse legend
on type 255 occurs on the coin above reading
ON EDM.
. . ILEBERT * 255
Watford find, 2 specimens.
frGILLEBER *hENRIE . . 255
Watford find.
*GODRIE : ON : S : EDM : *hENRIEVS R 265
J. Murdoch. PI. VII. No. 1. From the
Montagu, 1896, 14 15s., illustrated No.
298 in the catalogue, Shepherd, 1885,
13 10s., Durrant, 1847, and Tyssen,
1802, Sales. Probably the coin engraved
Ruding, ii., 5.
*[60D]RIE:ON:SANTIE: *HENR . . . S R 262
H. M. Reynolds. From the Simpson Rostron
Sale, 1892.
392 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLK.
. 60DRIE : ON : SANT .frhENRIEVS
Watford find. Corrected.
*ODDE : OX [SJANTIED
262
262
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. Recently found at
Bury St. Edmunds.
.J.PVLFPART : ON : SAN
REX
Bury St. Edmunds Museum, Found at Whep-
stoad, within five miles of Bury St. Edmunds.
..... AR ON SANTIEDM
H. P. Smith Sale, 1886.
Southgate, 1795, Tyssen, 1802, Salw.
263
262
2*1
SALISBURY (WILTSHIRE).
SARESBERIA, SEARBYRIG, SERIBERIA, SEREBURH ;
Domesday, SARISBERIE ; Pipe Roll, SARUM.
The deserted mound of Old Sarum marks the site of
one of the few great cities of the world which have dis-
appeared in historical times. It is true that the mighty
earthworks, as an object lesson of the ultimate futility of
man's greatest works, still overlook the mediaeval city to
which they have given their name, but their respective
histories are as remotely separated as the stories of war
and peace. Old Sarum is a relic of the Neolithic age,
and in turn served as a stronghold for Celt, Roman,
Briton, Saxon, Dane and Norman, until, worn out by
time, it is now barren of mankind. From the date, 522,
when " Cynric fought against the Britons at the place
which is called Searobyrig and put them to flight," it had
probably more of the character of a fortress than of a
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGX OF HENRY I. 393
city, but its greatest wave of prosperity was when the
ancient See of Sherborne was centred within its walls,
and its bishop, Roger of Salisbury, was chief justiciary
of all England, and administrator of the realm in the
days of Henry I.
1069. The ancient See of Sherborne was translated to
Salisbury. (Florence.)
1086 Domesday notes. "From half the mill at Salis-
bury the King has 20s. by weight. From the tertius
denarius of Salisbury the King has 6." The Bishop
holds Salisbury. In the time of King Edward it
paid geld for 50 hides. There are 82 carrucates of
land, of wbich 10 hides are in lordship and 8 carru-
cates. "Here are 25 villeins and 50 bondsmen with
17 carrucates. In Wilton 7 burgesses belonging to
this Manor pay 65 pence. In the Manor there are
4 mills of 47s. 7d. and half a mill of 30s. : also 142
acres of meadow : pasture 20 quarentines long and
10 broad, and woods 4 quarentines long and 2 broad.
Of the lands of this Manor Edward [of Salisbury]
holds 5 hides, Odo [? of Winchester] 5 hides, and
Hugh [? Lasne] 3 hides, less a fifth. Those who
held these [hides] in the time of King Edward
could not be separated from the Bishop. There are in
lordship 5 carrucates and 3 villeins and 17 bondsmen
with 2 carrucates. The lordship of the Bishop is
worth 47. What the men hold is valued at 17.
Edward of Salisbury, the Sheriff, has per annum
from the [tertius] denarius which pertains to the
shrievalty [of Wiltshire], also large payments hi kind
and otherwise, which are set out in detail.
1100. William II, at the time of his death, held the
bishopric of Salisbury in his own hands. (Florence.)
1102. Roger, King Henry's Chancellor, is appointed
Bishop, but owing to the dispute as to investitures,
his consecration is postponed. (Florence.)
1106. The King holds his Whitsuntide court at Salisbury.
1107. August llth. Bishop Roger is consecrated.
(Florence.) Of him Malmesbury says : " Henry
committed even the kingdom to his fidelity ; made
him Chancellor, and, not long afterwards, Bishop of
Salisbury. Roger therefore decided causes, regulated
the expenditure, and had charge of the Treasury.
394 MMISMATIC CHROXK'LE.
Such were his occupations when the King was in
England, such, without associate or inspector, when
he was absent in Normandy. . . . He built anew
the church of Salisbury [Old Sarum], and beautified
it in such a manner that it yields to none in
England."
1114. Edward of Salisbury is in Normandy, and
witnesses the King's charter to the Abbey of St.
Georges de Bocherville. (Docts. of France.)
1116. March 19th. "The Earls and Barons of all
England did homage and swore fealty, at Salisbury,
to William, the King's son," as heir-apparent to the
throne. (Melrose.)
1119. August. At the battle of Bremule "Edward of
Salisbury carried the standard, whose approved
intrepidity was in high renown, and never failed him
even when fighting to the death." (Orderic.)
1120. November 25th. Edward of Salisbury refused to
sail in the ill-fated White Ship, and " came on shore,
having left the vessel upon observing that it was
overcrowded with riotous and headstrong youths."
(Orderic.)
1123. On sailing to Normandy, Henry " committed all
England to the care and administration of Bishop
Roger." (Sax. Chron.)
1125. Christmas. Bishop Roger, as Chief Justiciary of
England, holds the inquisition of the moneyers at
Winchester. (See pages 80-81.)
1126. September. The custody of Robert, Duke of
Normandy, is transferred from Bishop Roger to
Robert of Gloucester. (See page 120.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Twenty shillings are paid out of
the county returns for making a gate [or door] to the
crypt ["cellarium," but possibly the courtyard] of
the keep of Salisbury ; and from the market toll of
Salisbury, which pertained to the firma of Wilton,
which the King gave to the Bishop of Salisbury, as
the Queen had before given it to the church of Salis-
bury, 40s. by number. [See the charters to which
these items refer in the Monasticon.] The Bishop
receives large grants from most of the county returns.
Under Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, Paganus
de Hocton accounts for 200 marks of silver and 2
marks of gold [upon his marriage with] the widow of
Edward of Salisbury, and his father for 200, in
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 395
addition, on his behalf, for the same fees. Walter of
Salisbury and Patrick de Cad.urc receive grants from
the returns of Wiltshire, and the latter from those of
several other counties. Humphrey de Bohun, under
Wiltshire, accounts for 22 10s., as successor to his
father's [? father-in-law's] land, and 400 silver marks,
that he might be Dapifer to the King ; also 60 silver
marks in case he should be able to claim the land of
Mere [Wilts] .
1131. September 8th. At the Council of Northampton,
Walter of Salisbury and Humphrey de Bohun witness
the King's charter to the See of Salisbury.
The name of the mint of Old Sarum makes its first
appearance upon our coins in the reign of Ethelred II,
and is continued upon those of all his successors until
the Conquest. But the output had been waning until,
in the time of the Confessor, it would seem as if the
number of moneyers never exceeded two.
A similar condition obtains under both of the Wil-
liams, and the types issued are of an intermittent
character. This, at once, prohibits the supposition that
Salisbury was either a royal mint, or that the privilege
of coinage was in the hands of its Bishop. The account
of the city as given us in Domesday is peculiar, and
worthy of a closer study than these pages will admit.
We are told that " the Bishop holds Salisbury," but then
follows its description, which is not that of the burg, but
of the whole district of some three thousand acres. More-
over, it is worth 47, and as the tertius denarius of the
burg was only 6, it is quite certain that what the Bishop
held was not the burg, or, at least, not the burg alone.
But there are more satisfactory proofs that the Bishops of
Salisbury never held either the burg or the castle of
Salisbury, and, shortly, the following are amongst them.
Six years after the date of Domesday the foundation
396 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
charter of its cathelral was granted, and amongst other
benefits it gave to the Bishop " et ante postam castelli
Seriberieusis terrain ex ultra parte vise in ortorum domo-
rumque canonieorum necessitate " (Monasticon), which,
if the Bishop already held the burg, need not, and could
not, have been granted to him. The castle of Devizes
was the stronghold of Bishop Roger ; and there, and not
at Salisbury, was Robert, Duke of Normandy, kept prisoner
by him. In 1130 the Pipe Roll conclusively proves that
the castle of Salisbury was still in the King's hands, for
its repairs are disbursed by the sheriff out of the county
returns. Finally, it was owing, in part, to the oppression
of the King's castellans of Old Sarum that the episcopal
chair was ultimately removed to the mediaeval and modern
city.
What the Bishop held, therefore, according to Domes-
day, was probably most, if not all, of the Hundred of
Underditch, i.e., under the ditches of Old Sarum. But
we are told that Edward held five hides, Odo five, and
Hugh three and four-fifths of a hide, which in the time
of the Confessor could not be separated from what the
Bishop held ; or, according to the above theory, could
not be separated from the hundred. This land is valued
at 17, and in view of the fact that the third penny of
Salisbury was worth 6, it looks very much as if it
represented the burg. " Edward," too, must surely be
Edward of Salisbury, and we know, from the fact that his
grandson was hereditary castellan, and was as such
created Earl of Salisbury, that Edward was the King's
castellan, and Domesday tells us that he held also the
hereditary shrievalty of Wiltshire.
Without, however, laying stress on the possible identity
of the 134- hides with the burg, it seems certain, from the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 397
subsequent history of the family, that Edward of Salis-
bury was the King's castellan of the burg. The King,
at the time of Domesday, held the tertius denarius in his
own hands, and it is very possible that it survived to him
with those of several cities in the south-west of England,
which we know had been possessed by Queen Matilda,
and fell into his hands upon her death. Edward's posi-
tion, therefore, seems to have been very similar to that
of Roger Bigod at Ipswich (see page 231), and in all
probability he, also, subsequently received the tertius
denarius itself ; for, as hereditary sheriff of the county,
he, like De Grantmesnil at Leicester, was almost but
not quite an earl.
That the Bishop had no share whatever in the mint of
Salisbury is further proved by the 1146 Bull of Pope
Eugenius III. This Bull schedules the various posses-
sions and rights of the See of Salisbury, and, as to its
form and purpose, is identical in every respect with his
Bull of the same date to Peterborough. Yet, although
the latter twice details the moneyer at Stamford, there is,
in the former, no allusion to any right of coinage in the
confirmation of the many privileges of the Bishop of
Salisbury. That at the date of Domesday the mint of
Salisbury was not in the King's hands is proved by the
absence of any item of the payment of a firma or fine by
its moneyers. And that it was not in the hands of the
burgesses is similarly clear from the entire omission of
any mention of them or of their firma. Therefore
little doubt remains that it was a grantee's mint, and
the sole prerogative of Edward of Salisbury. Had it
been otherwise, we may rest assured that Henry I would
have granted some share, at least, in it to his favourite
minister and ecclesiastic, Bishop Roger.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 3 T
398 NUMISMATIC CHROXICXE.
Who was Edward of Salisbury? According to our old
friend Camden, he was the younger son of Walter de
Evreux, Earl of Roumare, but according to " The Norman
People," he was the second son of Gerald de Roumare,
the Dapifer. He seems therefore to have been the second,
or more probably the third son of the House of Rou-
mare and as such was uncle to William de Roumare
afterwards Earl of Lincoln (page 262.) The senior line,
which held Roumare and other large possessions of the
family in Normandy, soon became extinct (Camden) and
therefore out of some confusion we may gather the
following pedigree. Gerald the Dapifer left seven sons,
of whom Robert Fitz Gerald, Roger Fitz Gerald and
Edward of Salisbury were the three eldest. The first
was the Robert Fitz Gerald who was Standard-Bearer to
Bohemond in the first Crusade, and the second was the
father of William de Roumare.
From the date of Domesday to the accession of Henry I,
Edward of Salisbury's principal residence was the castle
from which he derived his name, and, in consequence, most
of the intermediate types of the coinage are in evidence
from his mint at Salisbury. This was also the local condition
of affairs during the first six years of King Henry's reign,
and therefore types 251 (1100-1102), 254 (1102-1104),
and 253 (1104-1106) are duly represented amongst our
coins of this mint. But in 1106 he no doubt accompanit d
Henry to Normandy and fought at Tinchebrai to earn
that " approved intrepidity and high renown " in battle
which is accorded to him by Orderic. At this date his
brother Roger de Roumare was lately dead, for Lucia, his
widow, re- married and became the mother of Ralph de
Gernons, at the latest, in 1107 ; as the latter was of
age, and succeeded to the Earldom of Chester in 1129
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 399
(page 149). Edward of Salisbury thus acquired the
large possessions of Roger in Normandy, as guardian to
the infant William de Roumare. About this time, too,
probably occurred the death of his eldest brother Robert,
the Standard-Bearer, whose line, we know, soon became
extinct. It is true that a Robert fitz Gerold's name
occurs in much later charters, but as it is usually in con-
nection with the retainers of the Earl of Leicester and
appears during Stephen's reign, it cannot represent the
Robert whose prowess in the first Crusade was second to
none and who was Lord of Roumare. That Edward had
succeeded to Robert's vast estates and to his hereditary
title of Standard-Bearer to Normandy is proved by the
fact that he " carried the Standard" in 1119 at the battle
of Bremule, and that he was guardian of the young
William de Roumare is corroborated by the fact that
Edward of Salisbury and William de Roumare are
mentioned by Orderic in the same sentence as refusing
to sail in the ill-fated White Ship in 1120. Orderic also
says that one Walter similarly escaped, who probably was
Edward's son afterwards Walter of Salisbury.
We have the evidence of the charter of St. Georges
that Edward of Salisbury was in Normandy in 1114, and
so far as an extensive search has disclosed, no English
charter of later date than 1106 bears his name. Hence
we may assume that from the time of Tinchebrai in 1106
to his refusing to sail in the White Ship in 1120, Edward
was concerned in the wars in Normandy and in the
administration of the much larger estates of the family
in that country. Thus coincidentally with the consecra-
tion of the King's favourite, Roger, Bishop of Salisbury,
Edward the castellan relinquishes the city to his care and
joins the campaigns in Normandy, hence coinage at
400 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Salisbury is necessarily discontinued. The White Ship
was the last of the fleet to sail on the King's return to
England in November, 1120, and whether Edward subse-
quently followed him or not is a matter of doubt, but if
we are justified in taking Orderic's expression " even
when fighting to the death," in its literal sense, we may
assume that he remained in Normandy and perished
in one of the numerous battles there, for England rested
in peace.
Edward died before .1129, for in that year his widow
had already been married to Pain de Hocton. He left a
son, Walter of Salisbury, and a daughter, the wife of
Humphrey de Bohun. His large possessions in England
were, we are told, divided between his son, Walter of
Salisbury and his daughter, the wife of Humphrey de
Bohun, though Walter would, of course, take Salisbury
and the family honours. Both Walter and Humphrey
therefore return to England to take possession of their
inheritance, and the 1130 Pipe Roll tells us that the
former, who is styled " Walter de Salisbury," was receiv-
ing revenue from Wiltshire and the adjoining county,
and that the latter was paying relief on the death of " his
father," perhaps his father-in-law, and had been appointed
a Royal Dapifer. In September, 1131, they are together
at the Council of Northampton and witness the charter
to Salisbury. Hence type 262 (1129-1131) is in evidence,
amongst our coins of Salisbury, of this visit to England.
As early as in the reign of Rufus, Walter had married
Sibilla of Cadurc, and their son Patrick afterwards first
Earl of Salisbury took his mother's name, and as Patrick
de Cadurc is frequently mentioned in the 1130 Pipe Boll.
This pedigree is proved by a later charter to Salisbury
commencing " Walterus, Edwardi vicecomitis films, et
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 401
Sibilla uxor mea et heres noster Comes Patricias " (Geof.
de Hand. 276).
We know no more of Walter of Salisbury durino- the
^
few remaining years of this reign, but as his name does
not occur in any English charters in the meantime and
as Humphrey de Bohun certainly returned to Normandy,
we may assume that his visit to England was merely for
the purpose of receiving his hereditary estates in this
country and that he preferred to return to his larger
possessions in Normandy. This only would account for
the absence of type 255 from our coins of Salisbury.
The mint seems to have been intermittently continued
until the reign of Henry III, when, no doubt, together
with the old city, it ceased its existence.
COINS.
frGODRIE ON SAER 251
E. H. Evans Sale, 1894. From Rusher Davis
Sale, 1893, " found at St. John's." The
name of the mint was read SHER, for, on
this type, the letter A is often represented
by two parallel uprights, joined, as in the
modern H. A Godric coined here in the
time of William I.
J.OSBRN ON SERB *HEN 254
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University.
Osbern coined here in the two previous
reigns.
*OSBERN ON SEAR *hENRI REX AI 253
This reading seems to have been taken from
the coin itself, but the reference has been
omitted.
402 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
J.OSBERN OX SEAR tiENRI REX AI 253
Neville Rolfe Sale, 1882.
^.OSBER . ON SEAR 253
Sale, February, 1866.
ON : SERBIK .frriENRIEVS : 262
British Museum. The moneyer's name was
probably Sibern, see the next coin.
. . BEE . : . N S[E]R[B]E . rvEN . . . . S R : 262
Watford find. Mr. Rashleigh, however, merely
dots the letters of the moneyer's name, and
schedules the coin under " Uncertain mints."
SANDWICH (KENT).
SANDWIC, SANDWICH, SANDWICUM; Domesday, SANDWICH.
It is doubtful whether Sandwich was yet in existence
when the Roman legions landed at Rutupiae, or when
the Saxon fleet disembarked at Ebbsfleet in its imme-
diate vicinity, but even then so convenient a harbour
would scarcely be neglected. It was at Sandwich that
Athelstan fought his great naval battle with the Danes in
851 and captured nine of their ships ; but during the last
fifty years of the Saxon rule in England there was scarce
a disturbance by sea or by land but the town was the
scene of strife or plunder.
1086. Domesday notes. The Archbishop [of Canter-
bury] holds this burg, and it is for the maintenance
of the monks, and returned similar service to the King
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 403
as Dover, which the men of the burg testify. Before
King Edward gave it to the Holy Trinity it paid 15
to the King. At the time of the death of King
Edward it was not [let] saifirma. When the Arch*
bishop received it, it paid 40 as/rwm, and 40,000
herrings for the rbustenance of the monks. In the
year in which this survey is made it paid 50 asjirmu
and herrings as before. In the time of King Edward
there were here 307 inhabited houses, now there
are 76 more, i.e. 883.
By a charter dated June 3rd, 966, King Edgar granted
to the Church at Canterbury the port and town of
Sandwich, together with all the liberties and customs of
the King which pertained to them, and in 1023 Canute
confirmed the same. But in neither of these charters,
which are set out in full in the Diplomatarium Anglicum
^Evi Saxonici, is there any mention of a mint.
Upon the authority of the British Museum Catalogue
an incidental reference has been made on page 174 to the
origin of this mint in the reign of Ethelred II, but the
evidence in support of this contention solely rests upon
the legend -frSPAETEAE MO SAN, and when this is com-
pared with a Stamford coin of the same King and type,
reading *SPAETGAR MO STA, it is shaken. According
to Ruding there is, or was, a coin reading SANDVVI
of the reign of Canute which, if correctly read, must have
been issued at Sandwich. But the earliest tangible evi-
dence we have of the existence of the mint is on certain
coins of the Confessor reading ON SADJ7 and ON SANDJ7I,
and in view of the absence of any reference to a mint in
the before-mentioned charters, it is not improbable that it
was established by him in a grant to the church of Can-
terbury. It was continued in the reigns of William I
and II.
Domesday tells us that although the Archbishop held
404 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
the town it rendered the same service to the King as
Dover. Sandwich, therefore, supplied " 20 ships to the
King's fleet for 15 days in every year, each being manned
by 21 men." When, therefore, King Henry ascended
the throne in 1100, there was no reason why type 251
(1100-1101) should not have been issued here, although,
as yet, it is not to be found. But in 1101, when the fleet
betrayed the King upon the emergency of Duke Robert's
invasion, and deserted to the enemy, Sandwich, as one of
the burgs responsible for the maritime defence, would, as
we have seen happened in the similar cases of Dover,
Lewes, and Oxford, suffer the King's displeasure and lose
its privileges. Thus, whether the moneyer was directly
under the Archbishop or whether, as at Dover, Oxford,
and Lewes, the burgesses farmed the mint in the firma of
their burg, and the latter is the more probable, the privi-
lege would be withdrawn, and coinage of necessity
cease.
In his account of the Watford find, Num. Chron. xii.
152, Mr. Rashleigh, however, assigns to this mint a coin
of type 262 (1128-1131), reading *60 . . . SE : ON : SA . D :
and, if correctly read, it is the only specimen of Henry's
reign which seems to warrant the appropriation, for all
others previously given to Sandwich must, as we have
seen on page 390, be transferred to St. Edmundsbury.
But standing alone as this reading does, it is not very
satisfactory, and it is just possible that it, also, may really
be the work of 60DEIC of St. Edmundsbury. If, how-
ever, it is rightly appropriated to Sandwich, it is
significant that its date (1128-1131) should immediately
follow a certain writ dated 1127, by which King Henry
decided in favour of the Church of Canterbury, a famous
cause touching the claims of the Abbot of St. Augustine
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 405
to certain customs infringing the liberties of the port of
Sandwich, and confirmed the whole of its rents and dues
to the former community.
It is, therefore, with much hesitation that Sandwich
has been inserted in the list of Henry's mints, and it was
omitted, as doubtful, from the list of the mints under
type 262, page 90, but as there is a coin of King Stephen
reading ON : SANPI, the last which has any claim to such
an appropriation, the town must, for the present at least,
receive the benefit of the doubt.
COINS.
*GO . . . SE : ON : SA . D : *fiENRIE . . 262
Watford find.
For coins previously assigned to this mint see under
St. Edmundsbury.
SOUTHAMPTON (HAMPSHIRE).
HAMTUNE, HEAMTUN, HANTON, ANTONA ; Domesday, HANTUNB ;
Pipe Boll, HAMTONA.
It is to the Roman fortification in the immediate
vicinity that Southampton, doubtless, owes its origin ;
but its importance in Saxon days was due to its position
as the port of Winchester, the capital of England. As
such it unfortunately suffered periodical attacks from the
Danish fleets, and was more than once burnt to the
ground. But upon the accession of Canute its fortunes
improved, for he is said to have been crowned here, and to
have chosen the burg as an occasional residence : here,
also, tradition assigns his famous moral upon the sea-
shore.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 3 Q
406
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
108G. Domesday notes. " In the burg of [South] Hamp-
ton the King has in lordship 76 men who pay 7 in
land tax, and paid the same in the time of King
Edward. Of these 27 paid 8d., two 12d., and
others, 50 in number, 6d. each. Since King William
came into England there are 65 Norman and 31
English inhabitants, who, amongst them, render
4 Os. 6d. in customs." Various feudatories are men-
tioned who hold their bouses, some fifty in all, free
"by concession of King William."
1128-9. King Henry grants the foundation charter of the
Priory of St. Denys, Southampton. The date is
usually given as 1184, but the charter is addressed to
William Bishop of Winchester, who died in 1129, and
to William de Pont-de-1'Arche, the Sheriff, who was
Sheriff of Hampshire in 1129, and is witnessed by
William Archbishop of Canterbury, who was appointed
in 1123.
1130. Pipe Eoll notes. The membrane, which, according
to the schedule, contained the accounts of South-
ampton, is missing, but elsewhere we notice that the
King's Court had lately journeyed from Clarendon to
this town.
As early as in a charter of King Ethelwulf, South-
ampton is designated a royal town, and in Athelstan's
Law it was allowed two money ers. Coins issued here of
the latter King are in existence, also of Eadred and of all
his Saxon successors.
When the Conqueror " came into England " he found
that nearly every burg of importance in the south-
western district had acquired the privilege of coining.
However convenient the system of numerous small mints,
scattered amongst the people, may have been to the
public, it was neither economical nor profitable to the
King, as, so far as we can judge from existing coins,
many of them seem only to have coined spasmodically, for
the supply, no doubt, exceeded the demand. William's
policy, therefore, from the commencement of his reign,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 407
was to absorb the smaller mints into the larger, and these
again into the chief royal mints of the district. Thus a
comparison of their moneyers shows us, how one after
another these smaller mints were absorbed, until at the
accession of Henry I, in Dorsetshire, Hampshire, and
Wiltshire alone, those of Bedwin, Bridport, Cricklade,
Malmesbury, Marlborough and Shaftesbury had dis-
appeared, and those of Southampton, Wareham and Wilton
seem to have become mere appendages to the royal mint at
Winchester. These in turn were to fall, and in the course
of centuries London gradually gathered every mint in the
country into its meshes until, to-day, it alone survives.
At the date of Domesday the mints of Southampton
and Wilton seem to have been in the same relation to
Winchester as Southwark was to London, and, therefore,
they are not scheduled in the survey. The moneyers of
Southampton were usually moneyers of Wilton, and most
of the moneyers of Wilton can be identified as officials of
the Winchester mint. Again, in later times, for instance,
Sanson, who coined only at Southampton in the reign of
Stephen, is entered in the Liber Win ton for 1148 as
" Sanson monetarius," and as receiving and paying large
fees as a burgess of Winchester. In the same authority
appears, amongst its Winchester records, the curious
passage, " Godwin Socche fuit tempore Regis Edtvardi
magister monetari[omm~\" who was the 6ODJ7INE upon
the Winchester coins of both the Confessor and William I.
This is the only record of an official who is described as
the chief of the moneyers ; and it seems to fit in exactly
with the circumstances if we consider the mint of
Winchester as the centre of a monetary system com-
prising not only its own mint, but, in addition, those of
several neighbouring royal towns.
408 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Its vicinity to the great city of Winchester would in
any case prejudicially affect the profitable working of the
Southampton mint, and, therefore, we can quite under-
stand that after it became appended to that of Winchester
there was no necessity for a constant coinage. But the
privilege of a mint still existed, and it followed that
whenever the demand for currency arose, the privilege
would be put into operation. We have seen, under
Lincoln, that nothing benefited the pi'osperity of a town
so much as the advent of the King and his court, and
nothing, therefore, tended so much to the demand for
money. With this in mind, a glance at the types which
we have of Southampton in Henry's reign, will explain
their issue. In 1106 Henry held his court at Salisbury
at the Feast of Pentecost, and thence he sailed to
Normandy. Hence we may assume that he embarked
from Southampton or Portsmouth, and so we find type
252 (1106-1108) represented amongst our coins of this
mint. Under the year 1123 the Saxon Chronicle tells us
that " the King went to Winchester, where he remained
during the festival of Easter, .... then he proceeded to
Portsmouth, and stayed there over Pentecost week, and as
soon as he had a fair wind he sailed for Normandy." Type
IV (1121-1123), therefore, records this visit upon our
Southampton coins. In 1129, as we have already seen
from the records in the Pipe Roll, King Henry and his
court visited Southampton. This was in April, 1130, when
he journeyed " from Woodstock to Clarendon and from
Clarendon to Southampton," thus type 262 (1129-1131)
is issued at Southampton. It does not appear that the
King was ever in the vicinity of the mint upon any other
occasion (except at Portsmouth in 1114, when the coinage
was represented at Wilton}, and it does not appear that
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HEXRY I. 409
the mint of Southampton issued any other types.
Sudbury, Tamworth and Warwick seem to have been
similarly influenced as to their coinage.
The mint was entirely discontinued at some date in the
following reign.
COINS.
.frDORT ON hANTO .frhENRI REX 252
British Museum. From the Montagu Sale,
1896, 5. The first two letters of the
moneyer's name are somewhat indistinct.
frPAIEN : ON IiAMTV .frhENRI ... 265
British Museum. Probably from the Tyssen
Sale, 1802. The supposed use of tbe Saxon
form of the letter H in the name of the mint
on this coin was the exception referred to on
page 84, but upon examination the letter
proves to be of the ordinary type, i.e. l\.
Hence the solitary exception fails and the
disappearance of the form H in the year
1106 was absolute. As to the moneyer, see
page 823. The Pain family were settled in
Hampshire and Dorsetshire from Norman
times hence Pain's Bridge and Payne's
Place ; and a member of it was summoned
to the 7th Parliament of Richard II.
*S . RUE ON I\AM 252
Simpson Eostron Sale, 1892. Probably the
similar coin described in the Marsh am
catalogue, 1888. The moneyer was doubt-
less Serlic, and the name Sere' occurs as of
this district in the 1130 Pipe Roll. This
moneyer coined at Wilton in the previous
type.
410 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
.J.VLF ON hAMTV .frriENC EEX A IV
British Museum. The moneyer was, perhaps,
the VLFPINE who had coined at Win-
chester in type 267.
The coin of type 255 doubtfully attributed to
this mint in the Tyssen Catalogue, and
therefore so entered on page 96, cannot be
traced.
SOUTHWARK. See LONDON AND SOUTHWARD
STAMFORD. See PETERBOROUGH.
SUDBURY (SUFFOLK).
SUTHBYRIG, SUTHBERIE, SUTHBURH ; Domesday, SUTBERIE ; Pipe
Roll (Henry II), SUTHBERIA.
" The history of East Anglia is nearly blank in the
chronicles of England," wrote Sir Francis Palgrave, and
perhaps Sudbury stood foremost in his mind. Its name
suggests that it was the southern burh of its ancient
kingdom, but we gather that in later Saxon times its
importance had so waned that at the date of Domesday,
although it still retained a market and a mint, its descrip-
tion is rather that of an agricultural district than that of
a burg. The Saxon Chronicle tells us that Alfun, Bishop
of East Anglia, died at Sudbury in 797, and, some two
centuries later, its ancient church of St. Gregory received
benefactions under the wills of JEtheric and .ZElflaed.
1086. Domesday notes. Under the heading of " The land
of the mother of Earl Morcar which William camerarius
and Otho aurifex administer in the King's hands," is,
" In Tingohv Hundred the mother of Earl Morcar held
Sudbury in the time of King Edward, now King
William has in lordship 3 carrucates of land ; then there
was one town [riVZa], now there are two and 63 towns-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 411
men, tenants of the Hall-mote, . . and 55 burgesses
in lordship." The church of St. Gregory holds certain
lands. The burg and the market are mentioned, " and
here there are moneyers." " It used to be worth 18,
by weight, and now it is worth 28, by number."
1130, Pipe Roll notes. ^The first item under this county is
that William Sorell accounts for 55 marks of silver
and | a mark of gold for an amercement of false pennies ;
he pays 10, is remitted 5 marks of silver by the
King's writ, and owes the balance. Sudbury is not
mentioned.
Although the name of Sudbury first appears upon our
coins in the reign of Ethelred II, there is, from a com-
parison of the. names of its moneyers and from their
number at that period, every reason to believe that it had
been in operation in previous reigns, when most of the
types bore the moneyers' names alone. That it was an
ancient town of importance we know ; and the name of
its hundred Thingoe of which, at the date of Domes-
day, it comprised one quarter in value, suggests that it
may, like the Tynwald of Man and the Thingvallyr of
Iceland, have been, at some time in the remote past, the
Ting or moot-place of East Anglia. This would account
for the otherwise remarkable fact that immediately its
name appears upon our coins we find the names of no
fewer than a dozen moneyers upon one type. Hence, in
the reign of Ethelred II, the town must have been of the
greatest prosperity, and its mint of an importance second
to none in East Anglia. But suddenly, during the same
reign, the mint is stopped, and although it was revived
by Canute, and continued by the Confessor, it never after-
wards aspired to more than a single money er. Surely
this writes the history of the rise and fall of a great
East Anglian burg a prey to the devastation of the
Danish raid of 1010, when
412 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
" The Danes had possession of the place of carnage ; and
there were they horsed ; and afterwards had dominion over
East Anglia and the land they, for three months, ravaged and
burnt ; and they even went into the wild fens and they des-
troyed men and cattle and burned, throughout the fens : and
Thetford they burnt and Cambridge, and after that they went
southward again to the Thames. . . . ever burning as they
went." (Saxon Chron.)
During the reigns of Canute, Edward the Confessor,
and "William I and II respectively, so far as we know,
the mint only issued one or perhaps two types, and there-
fore no regular firma could have been paid by it. Thus
the vague expression in Domesday, " here there are
moneyers," is exactly what we should expect in a case
where there was a right of coinage by ancient custom,
but which was only exercised at intermittent periods,
and under such special conditions and authority as might
arise at any time, and for which, therefore, no annual
firma or definite rent charge could be provided.
In the reign of Henry I there seem to have been four
occasions only when the royal mint at the impoverished
town of Sudbury might be expected to have been profit-
ably in operation. The first would be in 1104, when, as
we are told in the foundation charter of Thetford Priory,
"the King made a stay at Thetford." The date is proved
by the list of its witnesses, and Henry would pass through
Sudbury on his journey from London. It may be that
the King, in return for the expense he put upon the burg
for a night's entertainment of himself and his court,
freely confirmed the privilege of coining for that year.
Thus we have type 253 (1104-1106), commemorative of
the royal visit into East Anglia. The second occasion
would be when, as explained on page 62, every hide
throughout England had to contribute three shillings in
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 413
money for the dowry of the King's daughter Matilda,
prior to her marriage with the Emperor of Germany in
January, 1114 ; at a time, too, when Sudbury would he
enriched by the influx of > visitors at the consecration of
its own Priory of St. Bartholomew and of the neighbour-
ing Priory of Thetford. Hence we have type 267 (1112-
1114) of this mint. The third occasion was exactly
similar, i.e., probably for the dowry of Matilda's second
marriage in 1128, and so we have type 265 (1126-1128)
in evidence. The fourth and last occasion would be
during the years 1128-1131, when, as we have seen, the
mint of Norwich was, for a time, closed, and so Sudbury
stepped into the breach, and for a short period usurped
the privileges of the chief mint in East Anglia by issuing
type 262 (1128-1131).
The name of the moneyer on the two first occasions
when coinage was in operation at Sudbury that is
upon types 253 (1104-1106) and 267 (1112-1114) is
Wulfric, and as he is probably the PVLFEIE who coined
here for William I, he was doubtless of advanced age in
1114. It was about this date that he gave the church of
St. Bartholomew at Sudbury to the Monastery of
Westminster, for the King's confirmation charter of the
gift seems to have been granted in 1117. Henry's
charter is undated, but states that it was given at West-
minster. Therefore, as it is witnessed by Archbishop
Ralph, who was appointed April 26th, 1114, and is
addressed to Herbert, Bishop of Norwich, who died
July 22nd, 1119, its date is closely defined, and when we
observe, by inference, that the Queen, who died May ] st,
1118, was then living, and that Henry granted a charter
to Hulme Abbey, Norfolk, also at Westminster, but dated
1117, which is witnessed by Archbishop Ralph and
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 3 H
414 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Ralph the Chancellor (another witness common to both
deeds), that year may be accepted as the true date of the
Sudbury charter ; although the King's presence in
England at that period does not appear to have been
historically noticed.
The following are its terms :
" Henricus Rex Anglise, Herberto Episcopo Norwic. et Hay-
mom Dapifero, et Burgensibus de Suthbery, omnibusque minis-
tris suis et fidelibus, Francis et Anglis de Suthfolk salutem.
Sciatis me concessisee Deo, et Sancto Petro, et Monasterio
Westmon. pro redemptione animse mese Ecclesiam Sancti Bar-
tholomei de Suthberia quam WULFEICUS monetarius meus ad
usum monacborum inibi servientium eis dederat pro fraternitate
et monachatu suo quern ibidem susceperet," &c. (Monasticon.)
The charter is interesting, in that it not only describes
Wulfric as monetarius meus, thus showing him to have
been a royal moneyer ; but also proves that, as such, he
was of sufficient wealth and position as to be the founder,
or at least the donor, of the Priory.
The mint seems to have been entirely discontinued
after the reign of Stephen.
COINS.
^[OJSBERN [ON] SVDBE 265
Allen Sale, 1898. A Richard FitzOsberne
held a fief in Suffolk from Earl Bigod in
1165. (Norman People.)
frOS . . . . ON : SVTB : ^.IiENRIEVS EE 262
L. A. Lawrence. 20 grs.
fOSBEBN ON SVTB 262
Sales, April, 1889; June, 1901.
A NUMISMATIC H [STORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 415
*PVLFEIE ON SVB *HENRI REX 253
E. K. Burstal ; 17J grs. As to this moneyer,
see before.
/
*PVLFRIE : ON : SVTB *hENRIE REX 267
British Museum.
TAMWORTH (STAFFORDSHIRE).
TAMWEORTHIGE, TAMWURDIN, TAMESWRDA, TOMEWORTHIE, To-
MANWORTHIG, CHAUREWERD ; Domesday, TAMEWORDE ; Pipe
Roll, TAMEWORDA.
The earliest reference to Tamworth would seem to be
that in the charters of Offa, King of Mercia, and as he
and his successors granted several "in celebre vico on
Tomeworthie," or " sedens in regali palatio in Tamo-
worthige" it was doubtless the northern stronghold of the
Kings of Mercia. Towards the end of the ninth century
the town fell into the hands of the Danes, but in 913, " by
the help of God, Ethelfreda, Lady of the Mercians, went
with all the Mercians to Tamworth, and there built the
burh early in the summer." Here she died, and here in
925, Sihtric, King of Northumbria, paid homage to
Athelstan ; but in 943 Anlaf the Dane stormed Tamworth
with great carnage, and it is doubtful whether in the
reign of Henry I the town had even yet recovered from
this devastation, for the Pipe Roll gives us but a gloomy
record of its poverty.
1086. Domesday notes. The Honour of Tamworth, like
that of Hastings, is omitted from the Survey, but
under Wigeton, Draitone and Coleshelle twenty-two
burgesses of Tamworth are mentioned as appertaining
to those Manors.
416 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1180. Pipe Eoll notes. Under Staffordshire the Sheriff
of the county accounts for 25s. for the previous year's
auxilium of the burg, but it is remitted by the King's
writ to the burgesses, "because of their poverty,"
and similarly for 25s. for the current year, but with-
out any such remission.
Under Warwickshire the Sheriff of the county similarly
accounts for 37s. and 2d. for the previous year's
auxilium, and owes 80s. for the current year.
It is possible that some of the coins of the early Kings
of Mercia were struck at Tamworth, when for a time it
would appear to have been the seat of government ; and,
later, its name occurs upon those of Edgar, Edward the
Martyr, Ethelred II, Canute, Harold I, and Edward the
Confessor. But the mint seems to have been gradually de-
clining in importance towards the close of the Saxon epoch.
The omission from Domesday of the survey of Tam-
worth proves, as at Hastings, that the King had no interest
within it, and a charter of the Empress Matilda to
William de Beauchamp shows that the Honour had been
granted, probably immediately after the Conquest, to
Robert " Dispensator/' for she says :
" Et prseter hoc dedi ei et reddidi castellum et honorem de
Tamword ad tenendum ita bene et in pace et quiete et plenarie
et honorifice et libere sicut unquam melius et quietius et ple-
narius et honorificentius et liberius Kobertus Dispensator frater
Ursonis de Abbetot ipsum castellum et honorem tenuerit."
(Geof. de Hand., 314.)
The absolute grant of Tamworth to Robert Dispensator
would carry with it the royal mint, as we find evidenced
upon its coins by the usual grantee's intermittent coinage
during the reigns of the two Williams. Robert died,
without issue, in the reign of William II, and Tain-
worth would thus revert to the King. We now ap-
proach a very involved problem of genealogy ; Urso
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 417
d'Abetot, the brother, was the heir general, but there
seems no evidence that either Rufus or Henry I ever
granted the Honour to him. It is true that Matilda, in
1141, by the above charter, ^granted Tamworth to William
de Beauchamp as the grandson of TJrso d'Abetot, but at
that time it was in dispute between the Marmion and
Beauchamp families, and she naturally supported the
claims of her adherent.
There was no reason, save favour, why either Rufus or
Henry I should grant the Honour of Tamworth to a
collateral, for there was no descent from the original
grantee ; indeed, the policy of the latter King was to
curtail, rather than to extend, individual power. Thus,
as we have seen under similar circumstances, he withheld
both Lincoln and Carlisle from the earldom of Chester, and
he retained Hereford, Shrewsbury, Chichester, Pevensey,
and numerous other places, which had originally been
royal towns, when from one cause or another they fell
into his hands.
Therefore, instead of adding the Honour of Tamworth
to the already extensive possessions of Urso d'Abetot,
/ *
Constable of "Worcester, Henry restored it to its old posi-
tion as a *royal burg, and appointed Roger Marmion as
Constable of the Castle. That in Henry's reign neither
he nor his son Robert Marmion had as yet received a
grant of the Honour itself seems clear from Henry's
charter to the latter, conferring upon him free warren in
Warwickshire, " and especially at Tamworth as his father
had it [free warren]," which would have been unnecessary
had the Honour been his. Moreover, Roger had died shortly
before 1130, for the Pipe Roll tells us that Robert Mar-
mion accounted for 176 13s. 4d. " as relief for the lands
of his father," and as the entry and one or two others
418 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
concerning him are all under Lincolnshire, it is quite
clear that his hereditary estates were in that county.
Throughout the reign of Henry I, therefore, Taraworth
remained in the King's possession, and its ancient right
of coinage was revived. The mint would be leased with
the burg to its burgesses in their firma, and when it was
not in operation its share of such firma would be returned
to the burgesses. Its condition was, thus, similar to Dor-
chester, Colchester, and other mints as so often explained.
But there seem to be only three types of the reign which
can be appropriated to this mint, and the appropriation of
one of them is not quite beyond question. Like Sudbury,
Tamworth's glory had in Norman times departed, and,
as we shall presently see, poverty had come in at its doors.
It should be noticed that of these types the first, namely,
254 (1102-1104), perhaps immediately followed the lease
of the mint to the burgesses. The second type, 265
(1126-1128), was that issued throughout the country
upon the general revival of the coinage consequent upon
the Great Inquisition of themoneyers at Christmas, 1125.
The third type, 262 (1128-1131), was issued immediately
before or exactly at the date of the King's visit to
Northampton in 1131, when the King's advftnt would
entail the journeying through the town of many barons
to attend his court, and, if at no other time, coinage at
Tamworth would then be profitable.
This story of the Tamworth mint is substantiated by
the 1130 Pipe Roll. The instances of Dorchester, Col-
chester, Norwich, Oxford, Shaftesbury, Thetford, Wal-
lingford, &c., prove that the return of a small portion of
the auxilium to the burgesses meant that the mint was, or
some of its moneyers were, dormant at that date. The
firma was collected by the Sheriff, and included by him in
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 419
the county returns, therefore, if for any reason a burg was
entitled to the return of some portion of it, the obviously
better plan was to credit it out of the auxilium, rather
than to deduct it from fhejirma, which was not separately
entered in the accounts. In other words the allowance was
a customary grant by the King's favour, and not a mere
deduction (see under Thetford). Except, therefore, in the
particular years of 1102-1103, 1126 and 1130-1131, there
was probably no coinage at Tamworth " because of its
poverty " ; and so year by year, with those three excep-
tions only, 25s. would be returned to the burgesses " by
the King's writ in pardon." It happens that in the 1130
Pipe Roll Tamworth was in arrear with the payment of
its auxilium, and so we have the accounts for two years.
In 1128-1129 the mint was not in operation, and so the
25s., which was about the usual contribution to ihefirma
by a mint reduced to one moneyer, was returned " by the
King's writ in pardon to the Burgesses because of their
poverty." But in 1129-1130 the mint was issuing type
262, and so the auxilium is paid, in full, " into the
Treasury and the Sheriff is quit." It will be noticed that
there is no grant in either year out of the auxilium for
that portion of the town which was in Warwickshire,
hence we incidentally learn that the mint was on the
Staffordshire side of the river ; but that is only to be ex-
pected, for the main road to Tamworth was in that county,
and so, following the rule in the instance of the City of
London, where the principal gate was there would be the
mint.
Coinage at Tamworth ceased, for ever, with the close of
type 262 in 1131, except for a curious and temporary
revival during the following reign. The moneyer in 1131
was BfRIErijMAEE, and we find the name BRIEhMAR
420 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
upon the succeeding type at London. His predecessor
was LEFPINE, whose name also appears on the London
coins immediately after it disappears from Tamworth. As
in both of these cases the moneyer's name is absent from
the London coins of the types then being issued at Tam-
worth, we may take it for granted that King Henry
supplied his mint, which although farmed to the burgesses
of Tamworth still retained its royal character, from the
metropolitan mint.
COINS.
J.IELDKED ON TPH *HENEI EEI 254
Spick and Son. PI. VIII. No. 2. IELDEED
is, of course, JEldred, and probably a form
of Alfred, which name occurs on a Tamworth
coin of the following reign.
frB[EIEfi]MAEE ON TAME 262
Spink and Son. From the Peace Sale, 1894.
As to the moneyer, see before.
fc LEFPINE : ON : TAMEPV .frfiENEIEVS E 265
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University. As
to the moneyer, see before.
THETFORD (NORFOLK).
THEODFORD, THEOTFORD, TEDFORDIA ; Domesday, TETFORD ;
Pipe Eoll, TIETFORD.
" The Roman remains as yet discovered at Thetford are
neither numerous nor important, though there is little
doubt as to the identification of the site of the Roman
town," says Mr. Dukinfield-Astley in a recent paper to
the Brit. Arch. Ass. Although it is said to have been
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 421
once the capital of East Anglia, it does not enter the
pages of the Saxon Chronicle until tlje year 870, when the
Danes "took up their winter quarters at Thetford, and
the same winter King Edmund fought against them, but
the Danes got the victory and slew the King and subdued
all the land." From this occupation probably dates the
building of the great mound, now known as Castle Hill,
as Mr. Astley demonstrates by a comparison with the
similar mound at Norwich, which is constructed over the
Roman Road and which is, at least, therefore post-Roman.
So Danish did the population become in succeeding years,
that King Edred, in 952, " commanded great slaughter
to be made in the town of Thetford," but in 1004 it was
nevertheless burnt by Sweyn the Dane, and it again
similarly suffered in 1010. At the close of the Saxon era,
however, its recovery had been so remarkable that it was
one of the largest towns in England.
1078. About this time Thetford was chosen as the See of
East Anglia.
1086. Domesday notes. In the burg there were formerly,
in the time of King Edward, 948 burgesses from whom
the King had all customs. Now there are 720 burgesses
and 224 houses empty. The whole of the burg was worth
in the time of King Edward 20, by number, and for
the office of the Ealdorman [consul] 10, by number.
Now it pays to the King 50, by weight, and to the
Earl 20, blanched, and 6, by number. It also now
pays to the King 40 for the mint.
1094. The See of East Anglia is translated to Norwich.
1104. December. Roger Bigod founds Thetford Priory,
and in the charter we are incidentally told that King
Henry was then visiting the town.
1107. Roger Bigod is buried in the Priory (Orderic.) As
to this family see under Ipswich.
1119. Apparent date of William Bigod's confirmation charter
of the Priory.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The Sheriff accounts for 1C
the auxilium of the burg of Thetford, but 60s. is returned
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. I
422 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
to the Burgesses by the King's writ. Godwine de
Wichingeham (Whitlingham) accounts for 40s. on a
plea of Richard Basset at Thetford. The monks of
Thetford receive 40s. from the county returns. Under
Suffolk, Fulchard, Provost of Thetford, owes 85 2s. 8d.
on a plea of Geoffrey de Clinton.
Our earliest coins upon which the name of Thetford
appears commence with the reign of Edgar, and after an
uninterrupted sequence, save here and there a missing
type, terminate during the first issue ,of Henry II.
Thetford was always a royal mint, and the passage in
Domesday tells us that although the Earl had the tertius
denarius from the firma of the burg, the King alone had
that of the mint. But what is more important is the
wording. " It [the burg] now pays to the King 40 for
the mint." This means that the burgesses farmed the mint
and paid a separate firma for it, and consequently it was
unnecessary to set out the names of Lagemen or tenants
in capite responsible for its rent, as at Lincoln and Oxford ;
for the whole of the burgesses were its lessees. No such
names therefore are given us at Thetford.
It is difficult to understand why the burg should have
been so heavily assessed for its mint, as, although the latter
was very prolific in the early years of its existence, there
were, after allowing for changes during the currency of a
type, certainly not more than four moneyers here at the
date of Domesday. Yet to recoup the burgesses for their
rent alone, if only the legitimate profit of sixteen pence
halfpenny was made upon every 240 pence coined (see
page 11), necessitated the enormous output for those days
of 139,636 pennies per annum. It is true that the more
prolific mint of Lincoln paid 75, but no such figures as
these are ever brought forward in the days when the
Pipe Rolls furnish us with current records, and it is
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 423
justifiable to suggest boldly that they do not represent
the permanent firma of the mint, but certain annual
instalments, which were being paid by the burgesses for the
purchase of the lease of the mint from the King ; just as
in the 1130 Pipe Roll the citizens of London paid 100
marks that they might elect their own sheriff or, in
other words, for their charter to hold their city at a firma
of 300. (See page 284.)
If Thetford was to pay 40 a year, why should the
burgesses in the 1157 Roll be allowed an abatement from
their firma of only 40 shillings, because the mint had
been deprived of two of its four moneyers, and after-
wards 4 per year because the four moneyers were no
longer in being ? From these inferences it is manifest
that the permanent firma of the mint was 4. Moreover,
if we take Domesday as a whole, and, when a fine is
payable on a change of type, average it over the two or
three years of the currency of a type, we find that in
most cases the firma of a mint was equal to about 1
per year from each moneyer. In the other cases,
therefore, where a large sum is mentioned, it is now
suggested that the burgesses or grantees of the mint
were paying a fine for their charter of the privilege.
Whatever was the firma of the mint at the date of
Domesday, it was only 4 in the reign of Henry I, as, it
is submitted, the following evidence will prove. The
Dialogue of the Exchequer explains that where there was a
nominal fixed payment of which the whole or part had
been remitted, the Sheriff entered the full amount in his
accounts, but on production of the King's writ the balance
was accepted, and a note of the writ entered for the re-
mainder. Such a writ might be either general or special,
and if general it was produced year after year by the
424 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
grantee whenever required ; in fact it operated as a
charter. We have seen that the firma of the Thetford
mint was, according to Domesday, tacked on to the firma
of the burg, and both were paid by the citizens ; we know
that the mint ceased to exist probably because the privi-
lege was withdrawn by the King at some time in the
reign of Henry II, and we have numismatic evidence
that the original number of moneyers was four. Hence,
after the mint was discontinued, when the burgesses
paid their rents they would deduct the share of the
mint by production of the King's writ ; so we have
only to refer to the later Pipe Rolls to find what that
share was. We will take the third year of King John,
because it happens to tell us what the original number of
moneyers was, viz., Et in defectu IIII Monetariorum de
Tetford 4, which means that, as the four moneyers of
Thetford were no longer there, the burgesses produced
their writ and were allowed a remittance of 4 from their
firma as representing the rent of the old mint. Turning
to a Roll nearer to the reign of Henry I, namely, for the
fourth year of Henry II, the similar entry, but for only
half the amount, is, "M in defectu Monetariorum de
Tetford 40s./' which shows that only two of the four
moneyers were then in office, and that as two had been
withdrawn, half of the firma of the mint was remitted.
This exactly tallies with the evidence of our coins, for
there are altogether only three names on the Thetford
coins of the entire reign, and therefore, after allowing for
a change, only two at any one time. This is again proved
by the fact that the Roll of his fourteenth year tells us
that there were only two moneyers here then, namely,
William FitzDerewater and William de Wicklevvood
(Norfolk) the " WILLELM " on the coins.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 425
Bringing all these arguments to bear upon the reign of
Henry I, we must infer that the mint was in the hands
of the burgesses, that its firma, as paid by them, was
4, and that the nominal number of money ers was four.
As a royal mint worked by the burgesses we should
therefore expect to find a complete, or nearly complete,
series of types upon its coins, and this is borne out by
the fact that of the fifteen types of Henry's reign
we have, to-day, no fewer than twelve in evidence of
the Thetford mint. But, after allowing in one or two
instances for a change of moneyer during the currency
of a type, it is quite clear that instead of there being
four moneyers in office, there was only one during the
whole of the reign. This is proved by a passage in the
1130 Pipe Roll, and, conversely, the fact explains the
passage. Unfortunately, as so often remarked, we have
only one Roll preserved of the reign, or no doubt a
similar entry would appear in all. It is, "The same
Sheriff returned an account of [10 for] the auxilium of
Thetford : [he paid] into the Treasury 7 : and [allowed]
in pardon by the King's writ to the Burgesses of Thet-
ford 60 shillings ; and they are quit."
This, of course, means that instead of paying 4 for
their mint, the burgesses had produced the King's writ
by which the number of moneyers had been reduced from
four to one, at'a time, and so a proportionate allowance was
made in the firma of the mint. Hence the Sheriff remitted
3 as representing the three moneyers in abeyance, and the
burgesses, in their auxilium, paid 1 for the still remain-
ing moneyer in office. That the passage refers to the
firma of the mint is proved by similar entries under
Dorchester, Colchester, Norwich, Oxford, Shaftesbury,
Tamworth, Thetford, Wallingford, etc., and the reduction
426 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
in the number of money ers probably occurred at the date
of the transfer of the See of East Anglia from Thetford
to Norwich in 1094.
According to Ruding, "in the reign of William I,
Turstan or Thurstan, of Thetford, and Half, his sou, were
mint masters (moneyers) here." He quotes " The History
of Norfolk," i. 469, as his authority, which, after describing
a coin of William I as reading " OD . ON DEODFOVED,"
continues : "At this time Turstan, or Thurstan of Thet-
ford, and Half, his son, were mint masters here." The
latter statement is evidently from a record, because the
coins would not give the relationship of Ralf to Thurstan,
but as there are, so far as can be ascertained, no coins
of either of the Williams bearing the name of OD .
THVESTAN or EALF, it is probable that a line, refer-
ring to the coins of Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II, has
been omitted ; for ODE appears on the Thetford coins of
Henry I and Stephen, EAWLF on those of Stephen, and
TVESTAN on those of Henry II. Perhaps the missing
record was not quite clear as to whether Thurstan or Half
was the son, describing them, e.g., as " father and son,"
for it would seem as if their relationship ought to be
reversed.
COINS.
^ABEEEAND : ON : TE liENEI EEX 26
Fitz-William Museum, Cambridge. PI. IV.,
No. 6. From a cast supplied by Mr. F.
Jenkinson. Obv. An additional star at the
end of the legend. Eev. The letter T is
similar to that on LIFNOD's coin below.
0[N : T]E ^IiENB .... 252
Lincoln and Son.
*AEVS . . TETFOE ^I\ENEI EE 252
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 427
British Museum. Engraved, Hawkins, 252.
The Anglicised form AEE appears upon St.
Edmundsbury coins in the following reign.
|<ALRA . . ON . ETF : >JIi BE 262
Watford find. The moneyer's name is pro-
bably ALEAND, and a later form of
ABEBRAND.
ON DTI *HENRI BIEX 251
Sale, July, 1890. The moneyer's name is
queried, and no doubt represents ASEHETIE
for Anchitel.
^ASEhETFE .N:TET: *I\ENRIEVS : REX AN IV
British Museum. PI. V., No. 8. Engraved,
Euding, Sup. I., 6. From Sir Robert
Cotton's collection.
^ASEI\ETIE ON TETFO ^hENRIEVS B : 265
British Museum. 19 grs. Engraved Num.
Chron., 2nd ser. xx., 11, 18. From the Mon-
tagu, 1897 ; Whitbourn, 1869, 2 Is. Od. ;
and Sharp, 1883, 6 17s. 6d., Sales. But
erroneously read STANFO, and the mark
illustrated Num. Chron. N.S. xx. 11, 19, was
probably accidental.
J<ASEIiETIE . . TftTFO 265
Richardson-Currer Sale, 1862.
ON DTF ^HENRI RI 254
J. Verity. From the March, 1866, and Boyne,
1896, Sales. The A in the moneyer's name
is composed of two uprights, as described
on page 43. It is probably a contraction
for Brand or possibly Brantoth ; see later.
428 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
ON DET J<HENKI BEX 254
Christmas Sale, 1864. The moneyer's name
is probably an error for BRAND.
^BRHTOD ON DTF ^HENRI R 254
Capt. R. J. H. Douglas. PI. II.. No. 7. The
moneyer's name is for Brantoth, or possibly
Brihtnoth .
>^ENSELRAM ON T tfrhE . RIE . . R . . 264
Sir John Evans. An Ingleran de Abern re-
ceived 7s. 6d. from the County returns of
Suffolk in the 1130 Pipe Roll, and an
Engelram witnessed the foundation charter
of Horton Priory.
^GODPINE ON DEF *HE . RI REX 254
Sir John Evans. This is probably the Godwine
who coined here in the previous reigns, and
was possibly father of the next.
^GODPINE : ON T [ET]FO *I\ENRIE REX 267
Sir John Evans. PI. IV., No. 2.
. . . E : ON : TETFO *I\ENRIEVS R : 262
British Museum. This is probably the God-
wine de Wichingeham who, in the 1180
Pipe Roll, is fined 40s. at Thetford on a plea
of Richard Basset (the King's Justiciary),
and it accounts for his name not appearing
on any later type.
... ON TETFO 262
Fewkes Sale, 1887.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 429
*LIFND ON DET *HENEI EEX 253
Sir John Evans. PI. II., No. 12. These old-
fashioned Saxon letters Q and T only occur
on one or two coins of this reign. See
ABEEEAND, above.
DEF : ^IiENEIE EEX 267
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University. En-
graved, Ending, Sup. II., 1, 6. The letters
on the reverse are, however, very indistinct ;
but a moneyer, NEEOLL, coined here in the
previous reign.
ON : TETF . E >frJ\ . NB . E : 255
J. Verity. From the Pearce Sale, 1898. As
to this moneyer, see before. He was pro-
bably the ODE who coined at St. Edmunds-
bury in the previous type. Under Suffolk,
in the 1130 Pipe Roll, an Odo fitz Odo de
Dommartino pays succession fees for his
father's property.
I<OD[E : ON : TETF]0[E]D ^IxEN ... 255
L. -" L J
Watford find.
. . . . ON : TE . F . . ... NEIE : 255
A. H. Sadd.
^<STAN . . ON : T . !<I\EN . . . EX 256
British Museum. PI. III., No. 6. Engraved,
Hawkins, 256. The moneyer's name was,
perhaps, STANEftE.
^STANCftE : ON : .... 256
Watford find. 2 specimens.
Specimens. Wakeford, 1879; Kirby, 1888; Lord
Grantley, 1894, Sales . . - 251
Webb, 1898, Sale . 266
The coin described on page 303 as ONTEFT ONN
LVN of type 267 may, possibly, be a Thetford com.
TOL. I. FOURTH SERIES.
430 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
WALLINGFORD (BERKSHIRE).
WELINGEFORD, WEALINGAFORD ; Domesday, WALINGEFORD ;
Pipe Roll, WABENGEFORD.
The name of Wallingford is, perhaps, derived from the
British Guallen-ford, and as such has been handed down
to us, iu almost unbroken sound, as descriptive of the ford
near the ancient Roman camp. It is believed to have
been an early fortress of the Saxons, and in their time it
suffered severely at the hands of the Danes. Upon one
occasion, in 1006, the Saxon Chronicle tells us, " Then
went they to Wallingford, which they burned entirely
. . . and carried their booty to the sea, for there might
the men of Winchester see an army daring and fearless
as they went by their gates towards the coast, and
brought themselves food and treasure over fifty miles
from the sea." But the burg rose from its ashes, and at
the time of the Conquest was a flourishing and populous
town under the Saxon Wigod, Thane of Wallingford.
1086. Domesday notes. In the burg of Wallingford
King Edward had 8 virgates of land and 276 houses
paying 11 as rent service. The inhabitants also
rendered service of transit, by horse or by water,
within a prescribed radius, and various military
customs. Now, the customs in the burg are the
same as formerly, but tbere are 13 fewer houses
[paying service to the King], for 8 had been de-
stroyed for the castle, " the moneyer has one free
so long as he makes the money," and the remainder
are exempt for reasons given. From these 13 houses
the King has no customs. King Edward had 15
acres, in which resided his house-carles. Milo Crispin
has these, though it is not known how. The various
feudatories of the Crown are mentioned, amongst
whom Milo Crispin holds 51 houses in the district,
In the time of the Confessor Wallingford was assessed
at 30, later at 40, now at 60, but nevertheless it
, pays asjirma 80,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 431
1107. Death of Milo Crispin. (Florence.) His daughter
(some authorities say, his widow) Matilda, married
Brian Fitz-Count. Matilda, the wife of Milo, was the
daughter of Robert d'Oilli and granddaughter of
Wigod, Thane of Wallingford, and through her
descended the constableship.
1126. Waleran, Earl of Mellent, is imprisoned at the
castle. (Orderic, Sax. Chron.)
1128. Brian Fitz-Count and the Earl of Gloucester hold
the audit of the exchequer at Winchester, and nego-
tiate the marriage of the Empress Matilda.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. Brian Fitz-Count accounts for
the ftrma of Wallingford at 53 10s. OJd., of which
he pays into the Treasury 39 13s. 4d. blanched.
Also for the auxiliwn of the burg at 15, respectively
for the current and two preceding years, but in each
instance it is remitted " by the King's writ in pardon
to the Burgesses of Wallingford because of thftir
poverty." He owes 146 ISs. 4d. for the office and
for part of the lands of Nigel d'Oilli. [The office was
perhaps the constableship of Wallingford Castle,
probably held by Nigel (after the death of Milo) aa
uncle to Matilda Crispin.]
We have coins bearing the name of Wallingford of the
reigns of Athelstan, Eadwig, and of all the succeeding
Saxon kings, but the mint was declining in importance ;
for although in the reign of Ethelred II we can trace the
names of half a dozen moneyers at a time, upon the
coins of the Confessor we find that of but one.
Domesday is unusually explicit in its returns for Wal-
lingford, but the entries which are of importance to our
subject are those concerning the fa-ma of the burg and
the moneyer. In the time of the Confessor the- firnta
was 30, but later, probably soon after the Conquest, it
was raised to 10, and, in 1086, to 60, but nevertheless
it actually paid 80. Thus the burg was farmed by the
King to the burgesses, and as there is no separate return
from the mint, we may assume that the latter was in
432
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
their hands also, and its rent included in their firma.
The entry that the moneyer has one house free from rent
service so long as he makes the money curiously confirms
the fact that our coins of Edward the Confessor, Harold II,
William I and II, after allowance has been made for
changes during the currency of a type, demonstrate that
a single monejer was usually, and that there were never
more than two aaoneyers, at that time in office at Walling-
ford. But the entry suggests more than this ; for it
would seem that by ancient custom the royal moneyer,
or moneyers, he:d their houses free and that now, when the
moneyer had beea transferred to the burgesses, he retained
his privileges. Moreover, it also implies that already
the mint had cetsed to be constantly worked, and so a
provision was inserted in the Survey that the privilege
was only to be enjoyed whilst it was so in operation.
The result of this would be that when the burgesses paid
their fcrma in full foe moneyer was free, but when the mint
was not in operatun, and the annual value of their dies
was therefore returned to them, the moneyer had to con-
tribute to the King's usual customs.
Between the date of Domesday and that of the 1130
Pipe Roll some cdamity must have befallen the town.
In 1086 Wallingforl was evidently in a condition of
prosperity, for its jrma has been more than doubled
since the time of the Confessor, and it was the principal
town in its county, bit in 1130 its firma has (unless
the entry concerns only t half- year's return) been reduced
to one-half, it had owed two years' auxilmm y and the
whole for the three years is returned to the burgesses
because of their poverty. Vhatever this calamity was,
our coins suggest that it occurred in 1101 or 1102; for
during the reigns of William I aid II coinage had been
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 433
continued during the issue of nearly every type, and upon
Henry's accession type 251 (1100-1102) duly appears.
But now there is a gap of nearly a dozen years, and, in
estimating the probabilities of its cause, the coincidence
of Duke Robert's invasion of the district, in August, 1101,
cannot be ignored. Domesday records, under Wallingford,
that when the King raised an army a soldier was supplied
and equipped from every five hides of land in the county,
and if anyone was summoned but failed to join the army,
the whole of his land was forfeited to the King. Hence we
maybe justified in assuming that the men of Wallingford
did not take the field for the King in his emergency, and
that when the crisis was passed he remembered, and pun-
ished, their desertion. This is the more probable in view
of the fact that a similar incident would seem to have
occurred in the neighbouring city of Oxford, where Nigel
d'Oilli was castellan, uncle to the wife of Milo Crispin,
castellan of Wallingford.
In 1112-1114, however, the mint is re-opened with type
267 ; no doubt for the purpose of supplying the demand
for the dowry of the Princess Matilda upon the occasion
of her first marriage in January, 1114. We next find it
in evidence on type 264 (1116-1119), which, perhaps,
marks the collection of the aid for the marriage of Prince
William early in 1120, and, finally, type 265 (1126-1128)
appears to represent the dowry of Matilda's second
marriage in 1128. The occasions, therefore, upon which
these three types were issued, exactly fulfil the conditions
of a mint which, " because of the poverty of the burgesses,"
was no longer a profitable commodity.
Coinage at Wallingford so far as the reign of Henry I
is concerned ceases with type 265 (1126-1128), and as we
have so often seen, the invariable condition when the 1130
434 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Pipe Roll tells us that the auxilium was returned to
the burgesses, was that, for the particular year at least, the
mint was closed. In this case the whole of it was remitted,
and so it is impossible to say how much represented the
value of the mint, for the greater would include the lesser ;
but it is clear that the burg was in an impoverished
condition and unable to pay its way, so the demand for
an exchange and a currency at Wallingford would then
be small indeed. The arrears and the remission of the
auxilium date from the year between Michaelmas, 1127, and
Michaelmas, 1128, and so type 265 (1126-1128) was
probably the last type issued.
That the mint, although still retaining its royal character,
was in the hands and under the direction of the burgesses,
is proved by a writ of the 23rd year of Henry III directing
the bailiff and burgesses to choose four persons of the
most trustworthy and prudent in their town for the office
of moneyers and for the keeping of the King's mint at
Wallingford, to do what by ancient custom was to be
done in that place (Madox). The writ suggests that the
coinage had then, as so often occurred in Henry Ps reign,
been allowed to lapse, and this is borne out by the
coins. Immediately after its date, however, a temporary
revival occurred ; but shortly afterwards the mint was
finally closed.
Not only is Wallingford closely connected with Oxford
geographically, but its Saxon and Norman history is
almost identical. Wigod, the Saxon thane, held both
towns, and his daughter and heiress married Robert d'Oilli.
Their daughter Matilda married Milo Crispin, who in her
right received the Constableship of Wallingford. After
his death, according to an Exchequer record, Henry,
exercising his privilege of guardianship, bestowed her in
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 435
marriage to Brian Fitz-Count ; but in view of the fact
that Milo died in 1107 and Fitz-Count does not appear in
history until at least twelve years later, it is more probable
that Brian married a daughter and sole heiress of Milo
and Matilda, of the same name as her mother. This would
allow for the succession, meanwhile, of Nigel d'Oilli as
surviving brother of Robert d'Oilli to the constableship
of Wallingford, an office he probably held until his death ,
circa 1128. It is therefore not surprising that most of the
money er s of Wallingford in Norman times also coined at
Oxford, and this brings us to what may be a mere
coincidence, but ought not to be passed unnoticed.
The Oseney Charter of 1129, already referred to under
Oxford, mentions amongst those who " infra biirgum
OxenefordicK terras tenuerunt " the names of " Godwinus
monetarim et Brichtricus monetarim," and therefore they
may be assumed to have been moneyers of Oxford, and
the Brihtred and God wine of Domesday. But there is no
reason why they should not have been still living in the
first half of the reign of Henry I, but transferred from
Oxford to Wallingford to conduct the occasional coinage
at the latter mint ; for the name BEIHTIE occurs on our
Wallingford coins of type 251 (1100-1102) and that of
60DPINE similarly on type 267 (1112-1114).
The number of specimens of type 265 which exist of the
Wallingford mint is remarkable, and is far in excess of
those of the same type of any other town. It may be that
there has been an unrecorded find of these coins in the
neighbourhood which, as in the cases of the Tamworth
hoard of William II's coins and of the Nottingham find of
Stephen's coins, contained a larger proportion of specimens
of the local mint because its money was naturally the more
plentiful in the locality of deposit. But there is another
436
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
possible explanation of the fact. The date of the type was
1126-1128, and Malmesbury tells us, under the latter
year, that none of the barons advised the marriage of the
Empress Matilda to Geoffrey of Anjou, " or indeed knew
of it except Robert Earl of Gloucester and Brian Fitz-
Count." It was therefore kept secret from the rest of the
barons until celebrated in 1128, and it is not improbable
that the supply of the extra coinage, which would be
necessary to meet the demand for currency that such
an event entailed, was delegated to Brian of Wallingford,
or at least foreseen and, to some considerable extent,
provided by him at Wallingford.
COINS.
*BEIHTIC ON PLI6L
J.HNEI . EX NL 251
British Museum. From the Montagu, 1896,
Sale, 6 5s. As to this moneyer, see before.
frGODPINE : ON : PELI6LE 267
Bari find. As to this moneyer, see before.
LF : ON : PALL : ^.fiENEIEVS E : 264
British Museum. Fig. M, page 68.
.frOSVLF : ON PELLI6L ^.fiENEIEVS E : 265
J. Murdoch. PL VI., No. 10. British
Museum, from the Strawberry Hill collection;
Bodleian Library, 2 specimens ; J. S. Hen-
son ; P. Carlyon-Britton ; Boyne Sale, 1896,
from Halliburton Young Sale, 1869 ; Mon-
tagu Sale, 1886; Ditto, 1888, 6 5s.;
Hendry Sale, 1883; Sale, March, 1866,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 437
4 12s. ; Sale, April, 1878 ; Tyssen Sale,
1802.
*OSVLF : ON : PELLI6L .frriENEIEVS E : 265
British Museum. From the Bank of England
collection ; Hunterian Museum, Glasgow
University ; Bodleian Library ; H. M.
Reynolds, 22 grs., from the Martin, 1859,
2 2s. and Simpson Rostron, 1892, 6, Sales.
*OSVLF : ON PELLI6LI fchENEIEVS E : 265
Engraved Snelling, i., 22, and Withy and
Ryall, ii., 17
Arnold Sale, 1877. 251
Dimsdale Sale, 1824. 265
There are certain imitations of the above coins of
OSVLF of type 265 upon which, however, the moneyer's
name is copied as OSWEF, OSVEF or VSVEF, the first
letter being so vague as to resemble a D, but open at the
top. On the obverse the drapery to the left of the bust
is in nearly horizontal folds instead of being curved as on
PI. VI., No. 10- There are also other deviations in the
copies. We are indebted to Mr. L. A. Lawrence, in
Num. Chron., 3rd ser., x., pp. 42-47, for the discovery and
remarkable demonstration of the spuriousness of these
fabrications.
WAREHAM (DOBSETSHIBK).
WEABEHAM, WEBHAM, WAEEHAM, WABBAM; Domesday and
Pipe Roll, WABHAM.
Wareham was, doubtless, a town in Celtic times, but
our historical knowledge of it seems to commence with
the burial of King Beorhtric in 800. In 876 it fell a prey
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 3 L
438 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
to the Danish invaders, and in later years few towns were
so subject to their incursions. Nevertheless, throughout
the Saxon period, Wareham maintained its ancient im-
portance ; for it was not until it was devastated at the
hands of the Conqueror, in 1067, that its prosperity
permanently suffered.
1086. Domesday notes. In Wareham, in the time of
King Edward, there were 143 houses in lordship
of the King. This town rendered service to the King
and paid geld for 10 hides, namely, 1 mark of silver
to the King's " housecarles " except for the customs
relating to thejlrma noctis. At that time there were
two moneyers, each of whom paid 1 mark of silver
to the King [as afirma] and 20s. whenever the money
was changed.
Now there are [in the King's lordship] 70 houses,
and 73 have been entirely destroyed since the time of
Hugh the Sheriff. In the part belonging to St.
Wandrille there are 45 houses standing and 17
destroyed, and in the part belonging to different
barons 20 standing and 60 destroyed. The Castle is,
incidentally, mentioned.
1118. King Henry imprisoned Robert deBeleme in Ware-
ham Castle for life. (Rob. de Torigny.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The Sheriff is allowed out of the
County returns 18 6s. for the keep and 40s. for
the clothing of Robert de Beleme, and 2s. is paid to
the carpenter for repairs at Wareham Castle. The
various burgs of the County contribute 11 in
auxilium.
King Athelstan, by his law, established a royal mint
here and assigned to it two moneyers. Our coins of
Wareham, therefore, commence in his reign, and are con-
tinued in those of all his Saxon successors.
Although Domesday explains that there were two
moneyers at Wareham in the time of the Confessor, it is
silent as to their existence in 1086 ; nevertheless, we know
from our coins that the two moneyers were still in office.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 439
It therefore follows that, as Wareham remained a royal
burg, the mint was in the hands of the burgesses, and we
learn from the Pipe Rolls of a century later that then,
at least, the burg itself was farmed to them. It will be
noticed that the account of this town in the Survey is,
practically, identical with that of Dorchester, hence what
has already been said of that mint will equally apply to
Wareham and need not be repeated here. The only
difference, however, is that "Wareham was always the
more important mint of the two, and therefore we have a
few more types representing it under the Norman Kings.
But although, as Domesday tells us, more than half
the town had been destroyed in the time of Hugh the
Sheriff, i.e. in 1067, the mint, after a short interval,
seems to have maintained its average output during the
reigns of the two Williams, and it was not until after
the accession of King Henry that it degenerated into an
intermittent coinage which was soon to terminate in its
extinction. Henry's first type, 251 (1100-1102), however,
duly appears upon our Wareham coins. But it is the last
type of what may be called its consecutive coinage. After
this date there is a long interval, when no doubt the
central royal mint at Winchester supplied the demand for
currency in the greater portion of the south-west of
England, and it is perhaps doubtful whether, but for
subsequent historical events, the ancient mint of Wareham
would not then have been finally absorbed into that of
Winchester, as was the case later in the same century.
In 1113, says Robert de Torigny, "King Henry,
retuoiing to England, placed Robert de Beleme in per-
petual imprisonment at Wareham," and Huntingdon, in
his letter to Walter, adds that " he died after a long
imprisonment ; of him whose fame had been spread every-
440
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
where, no one knew, after he was in prison, whether he
was alive or dead, and report was silent of the day of his
death." The earlier history of De Beleme, the most
powerful of Henry's enemies, either in England or in
Normandy, has already been sketched under Chichester,
pages 152-154, and it was not until November, 1112, that
he fell, and that somewhat treacherously, into the King's
hands. Henry at once brought, or, as the Saxon Chronicle
has it, sent him to England, and we may rest assured that
he placed him in the strongest and safest of his castles
available for the purpose. He chose that of Wareham,
and we may almost infer from that fact that it was under
the immediate control of his staunch henchman Roger,
Bishop of Salisbury, to whom at the same period was
entrusted the custody of Duke Robert of Normandy.
This meant a sudden change in the fortunes of Wareham,
for now a large garrison was necessary to defend the castle
from any possible attempt at Earl Robert's release, and no
doubt the town benefited generally by the greater demand
for money, and money's worth, entailed by the conversion
of its castle into a state prison. The mint is simultaneously
reopened, and types 267 (1112-1114) and 266 (1114-1116)
are in evidence to-day of this special demand for currency.
Similarly we have types IV. (1121-1123) and 262 (1128-
1131), but the intermediate types were either never issued
or have escaped discovery. During the issue of type 262
(1128-1131), we know that De Beleme was still alive, for
the cost of his keep and clothing are recorded in the 1130
Pipe Roll ; but as we may be certain that the following
type 255, which closed the reign, was never issued at
Wareham for otherwise, in the multitude of its speci-
mens, some representative coin would have survived to us
and as in the troubled times of Stephen he would, if living,
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY 1. 441
have at least been mentioned by historians, which he is
not, we may hazard the suppositions that his death
occurred in the year 1131, that the garrison was reduced,
and that the mint was then closed.
With regard to the appropriation of the coins assigned
to this mint no difficulty arises in the case of those of
the moneyer DEELINE, for on type 267 (1112-1114) he
uses the form PAEIxA ; and the same may be said of type
262, which has PAEh. Moreover, according to the "Winton
Domesday, circa 1116-1119, Wigot DELING then held
certain land at Winchester which ALESTAN the moneyer
had held in the time of the Confessor, see page 458.
But the moneyer SPEEfiAVOE uses PA and PAE only,
which would stand equally well for either Wareham or
Warwick, and in such cases almost the only resources of
appropriation are in the identification of the moneyer.
Sperhavoc is pure Anglo-Saxon for the Sparrow-hawk,
and, as a name, is probably a corruption of Sperhavocere,
the Sparrow-hawker, i.e. the Falconer. As such, the name
is of rare occurrence either upon our coins or in our
charters, and so far as a careful search has disclosed it
is not known in relation to Warwickshire. Upon the coins
of Winchester, however, with which mint that of Wareham
was always closely connected, the name of a moneyer
" SPEEAFVE " appears in the reign of Canute. But the
name is brought home to Wareham itself in our mediaeval
records, for a family of SPEEHAWK was settled there, and
a charter of the second year of Henry V discloses that
John Sperhawk was the then rector .of Holy Trinity Church,
Wareham.
COINS.
+DIELI6 : ON : PAEhA 267
Bari find.
442 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
*DEELINE : ON : PAEA *I\ENEI EEX 266
British Museum. Fig. L, page 65, and
PI, VIII. No. 8. Engraved Hawkins 266.
Obverse, the third star, instead of being in
the field, is at the close of the legend.
.*SPEEHAVIE ON?B .frHNBI EEX I 251
British Museum. PL VIII. No. 1. From the
Montagu, 1897, Sale, and illustrated No. 95
in that catalogue. As to the moneyer, see
before.
frSPEEHEVOE ON PA 261
Warne's History of Dorset. The last letter
of the moneyer's name (as on page 64, ante),
is misread T.
* SPEEft AVOE : ON : PAE * hENEIE : EEX I ^ l
Spink and Son, 20 grs. Fig. J, page 64.
From the Tyssen, 1802, Cuff, 1854, 7 10s.,
Murchison, 1864, 5 2s. 6d.,Bergne, 1873,
10 15s.,Brice and Montagu, 1896, 12 15s.,
collections. Sketched by Mr. Cuff in his,
now Mr. Webster's, copy of Kuding. Since
these notes were written, the coin, with
several others illustrated in the plates, has
passed into Mr. Carlyon-Britton's collection.
*SPEEhAVEE ON PA : ^IiENEIEVS EEX AN IV
British Museum.
ON : PABIi *I\ ....... B 262
Sir John Evans. 19 grs. Purchased at
Rome. There are faint traces of a moneyer's
name which suggest DEELIN6.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 443
WARWICK.
WARENGWIO, WARRINGWIC, WABVIC, WEBWIC ; Domesday and
Pipe Roll, WABWIC.
It is improbable that the natural strength of the situa-
tion of this town lay neglected until the year 915, when,
according to the Saxon Chronicle, Ethelfleda built the
burg at Warwick. What she constructed was, doubtless,
the existing mound, for she had probably recovered from
the Danes a town, or its remains, already of some
antiquity.
But Warwick plays little part in the history of Saxon
England, for in later times its fame followed upon, rather
than contributed to, the renown of its Earls.
1086. Domesday notes. In the burg of Warwick the
King has 113 houses within his lordship ; and [certain]
barons, whose names are given, have 112, from all of
which the King has his taxes. In addition to the
above there are 19 burgesses in the burg who have
19 houses with sac and soc and all customs and so
held them in the time of King Edward. Four houses
were destroyed for the site of the Castle. The
returns of the burg are included in the fees of the
county, but it also contributes 6 sextaries of honey
i.e., a sextary for 15 pennies, out of a total of 24 of
the greater measure from which the Earl of Mellent
has 6 sextaries and 5s. The custom of Warwick was,
that when the King raised an army for land service
10 burgesses went from Warwick on behalf of all the
others, and if any one was summoned but did not go
he compounded for 5s. to the King ; but if for service
against the King's enemies over the sea they sent to
him either 4 " batsueins " [A.-S. itswan=boatswain]
or 4 of pennies. In the time of the Confessor the
firnut of the burg and the tertius denarius of the pleas
of the shire were in the King's hands.
1100. " The dissensions at Henry's accession were
allayed, chiefly through the exertions of Henry, Earl
of Warwick, a man of unblemished integrity with
444 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
whom he had long been in the closest intimacy."
(Malmesbury.) He was the younger brother of
Robert, Earl of Mellent, and, later, of Leicester.
The Earl witnesses Henry's coronation charter.
1101. Is faithful to him during Duke Robert's invasion
(Malmesbury), witnesses the charters to Norwich at
Windsor, to Colchester and to Lewes. (Monasticon.)
1103. Witnesses the charters to the Abbey of Jumieges
at Winchester, and, probably in this year, that of
Bec-Hellouin. (Docts. of France.)
1108. Witnesses the foundation charter of St. Andrew's,
Northampton. (Monasticon.)
1114. Witnesses the charter to Hyde Abbey at Barnham,
Sussex. (Monasticon.)
1123. June 20th. Date of his death. (Dugdale.) But this
date is at variance with that assigned by Mr. Round
to the next charter ; 1119, as given in the Annals of
Winchester, is probably correct.
1123. April 15th. He is succeeded by his eldest son,
Roger, who, as Earl of Warwick, witnesses the charter
to Plympton Priory. (Mr. Bound's Feudal England,
p. 484.)
1125. Earl Roger, in Normandy, witnesses the charter to
Reading.
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The Earl accounts for 12 16s. 8d.
and two war-horses for his forestry or county rights
[cervorum], which, with various other items, suggests
that he had not yet paid off his succession dues. He
receives revenue from the returns of several counties,
and his mother, Margaret, " Countess of Warwick,"
is often similarly mentioned.
1181. September 8th. Earl Roger attends the council
at Northampton and witnesses the charter to Salis-
bury.
1143. The Countess Margaret, widow of Earl Henry,
joins in a charter to Bec-Hellouin (Docts. of France).
She was still living at the date of the 1157 Pipe Roll.
The origin of the mint at Warwick probably dates
from the time when the burgesses acquired the right to
hold their town by military custom namely, that of
supplying ten burgesses, and doubtless their followers, to
the King's army against the Danes. As, therefore, its
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 445
coins first appear in the reign of Ethelred II, we may
assume that, from that time forward, the burgesses held
their town as set forth in Domesday. Their mint
had never a plentiful output, but it was continued in
every reign from the time of Ethelred to that of
Stephen.
As such it would not come under the scope of Domesday,
for it was one of the privileges of the burgesses and was
included in their firma and customs. No record, therefore,
of its contribution to the returns of the burg are forth-
coming either in the Survey, or, later, in the Pipe Boll.
The creation, therefore, of the Earldom of Warwick could
not disturb the ancient privileges of the burgesses which
they held by prescriptive right, but would only divert a
third of their firma and customs. In other words, the
King could not grant to the Earl what was no longer his,
and so the mint remained in the hands of the burgesses.
It may, however, have fallen under the Earl's jurisdiction,
and so become subject to the same rules of issue as if it
had been his official prerogative ; but its history during the
reign of Henry I, as judged by the remarkable scarcity of
its coins, is rather that of a civic mint, neglected, and gradu-
ally falling into disuse, than that of a mint under the im-
mediate jurisdiction of one of the foremost Earls of the land.
In Henry's reign, apparently, its moneyers had already
been reduced to one, and, so far as the accident of dis-
covery has yet disclosed, it would seem that only two
types were issued. The first is type 253 (1104-U06),
which was, perhaps, issued in response to the special
demand for currency in the Midlands occasioned by the
King's Council at Northampton, in Lent, 1106. The
second is type 265 (1126-1128), and no doubt met the
monetary requirements of the red-letter year in the history
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. " M
446 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
of Warwick when the young Earl Roger, who, as we have
seen in the charters, already bore that title, returned from
Normandy, probably with Henry, in September, 1126,
and was invested with the feudal possession of the
Earldom.
In assigning these two types to Warwick some explana-
tion should be offered, because, although no doubt can be
raised as to the latter, for the legend _ 60DPINE ON:
PARPIC : is unusually conclusive, the former reads
OSMIEE ON PEE which might equally well be given to
Wareham. The name of the moneyer, however, is not
known in connection with the latter town, either upon its
coins or its records, but it occurs on coins of Ethelred II,
reading ON P2EEINE, which reading of course represents
Warwick, and therefore in default of better evidence we
may assume that the family was still at Warwick in the
days of Henry I, even if the office of moneyer had not
meanwhile been handed down from father to son. If,
however, the reading on the second coin of the same type
can be relied upon no argument is necessary; for PEEI
must represent Warwick.
So far as our numismatic knowledge extends we must
infer that the mint at Warwick was closed in the reign
of Stephen. Yet Ross in Historic!, Regum Anglice (ed.
Thos. Hearne, 1716), p. 194, speaking of the time of
Richard I, says that he ascertained from certain docu-
' /
ments [prohably destroyed afterwards in the fire of 1694],
in the chancery of St. Mary's Church, the names of the
moneyers at that time [temp. Ric. I] and previously, such
as Baldred, Everard, and others whose office was, without
doubt, on the site of the later College. Ruding, in vol. ii.,
p. 224, quotes the passage, and Mr. Gr. F. Hill has kindly
referred to the original authority in the British Museum
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HEXRY I. 447
from which the above particulars are extracted. This
reminds us of the story of Chatterton, but nevertheless
it is true, for the name of the moneyer upon the latest
coins we have of this mint is EVEEAED viz., of the
reign of Stephen and therefore, if we read " tune et ante "
not too literally, we have the remarkable instance of the
preservation for some five hundred years of the name of
at least one of the last of its moneyers in the local records
of Warwick. As to Baldred we know nothing, but the
identification of his colleague raises a suspicion that he,
perhaps, coined here for a short period about the date of
the accession of Henry II, when in consequence of the
immediate suppression of the mint his coins were but few
and as yet have not been discovered.
COINS.
.J.60DPINE ON : PAEPIO : .frhENEIEVS E 265
W. J. Andrew. PI, VII. No. 2. A Godwine
coined here in the previous reign.
*OSMIEE ON PEE *riENEI EEX 253
Warne Sale, 1889. Illustrated in the catalogue
and also in his " History of Dorset," PI. I.,
No. 15. As to the moneyer, see before.
J.OS PEEI 253
H. P. Smith Sale, 1886. "ON .... PEEI "
in the catalogue.
The specimen of type 255 queried to this
mint in the catalogue of the Clark Sale, 18J8
is the coin of Norwich reading *TOE [ON]
NOEWIE.
448 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
WILTON (WILTSHIRE).
WILTUN, WILLETUN, Wvi/TON, WiLTONiA ; Domesday,
WILTUNE ; Pipe Eoll, WILTONA.
As far backward as we can trace the history of "Wilton it
was always a royal town, and as such it originally gave its
name to the County. According to a charter of Ethel wulf,
dated 854, the King held his court " in palacio nostro quod
dicitur Wiltun" and here, in 871, Alfred fought his first
battle, after his accession, against the Danes. In 1003,
Sweyn, the Dane, " led his army into Wilton, and they
spoiled the town and burned it." Afterwards for nearly
a century, until united with that of Salisbury, it was the
See of a bishopric, and its famous nunnery was the early
home of two Queens of England, Edith, Consort to the
Confessor, and Matilda of Scotland, Queen to Henry I.
1086. Domesday Notes. " The King has from the burg
of Wilton 50. When Hervey [the Sheriff] received
it into his custody, it was paying 22." The holding
of the Church of St. Mary at Wilton in the burg
itself is worth 10 17s. 6d.
1130. Pipe Boll notes. Certain burgesses, whose names
will be found below, account for fines " upon a
Treasury plea," but the greater part of the fines is
remitted. The burgs in the County contribute 25s.
for the previous year, and 17 18s. for the current
year, as auxilium. The Church of St. Edith receives
41s. from the customs of estovers which Queen
Matilda gave [to her old school] and 25s. 6d. from
the fair, which the King and Queen had granted.
The Sheriff pays [to the Bishop of Salisbury] 40s.
as " toll of the Market at Salisbury, which pertains to
the firma of Wilton [and] which the King gave to
the Bishop of Salisbury inasmuch as the Queen had
previously granted it to the Church of Salisbury."
Wilton was a comparatively prolific Saxon mint from
the time of Edgar until the Conquest ; it was a royal
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 449
mint, and seems to have usually employed three moneyers.
This condition prevailed under William I until the time
came when Herman, Bishop of Sherborne and Wilton,
finally removed the joint See to Salisbury.
Whether the decline in the coinage was owing to this
removal, or whether the same cause, such, perhaps, as the
gradual decay of the burg, influenced the removal of the
See and the cessation of regular coinage, is a matter of
uncertainty, but it is evident that, coincidentally with
such removal, the mint of Wilton discontinued its con-
stant output, and afterwards, as already explained under
Southampton, seems only to have issued its money when
some special demand for currency would render such issue
profitable.
As the mint is omitted from the Domesday returns it
must either have been farmed to the burgesses in their firma
or have been in private hands. But the former alternative
was clearly the case as the King held the burg, and, there-
fore, no territorial lord could hold the mint. A writ of
Henry III, however, which is almost identical with that
quoted under Wallingford (page 434), proves the fact, for
we know of no constitutional changes in the interim in
the history of Wilton, and therefore the mint was in the
hands of the burgesses.
Under Southampton, page 407, we have incidentally
noticed the decline of the Wilton coinage, and that at the
date of King Henry's accession it had already become a
dead letter, save when some special demand for currency
rendered it worth the while of the burgesses to obtain
their dies from London and, perhaps, to borrow their
moneyers from the central royal mint at Winchester.
These occasions, so far as the reign of Henry I was con-
cerned, were : (1) When at Whitsuntide, 1106, the King
450 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
held his Court at Salisbury, but some three miles away.
This is represented by type 253 (1104-1106). (2) When
the dowry for the Princess Matilda's marriage, January,
1114, was being collected throughout the Kingdom; and
when the King returned with his army from Wales,,
probably through Wilton, to Portsmouth, where he
embarked for Normandy on September 1st, 1114. Hence
type 267 (1112-1114) appears. (3) When in 1129-30 the
King was at Southampton and, probably, at Shaftesbury and
Salisbury, which event accounts for type 262 (1128-1131).
With the exception of the first instance only one
moneyer's name occurs on the types of this reign, although
in earlier and also in later Norman times, when the mint
was in operation, there were always two or more money ers
at Wilton. As we have seen above, the latest of Henry's
types is that contemporary with the 1130 Pipe Roll, and
the fact that we find the name of one only of the minimum
number of two moneyers upon it suggests an explana-
tion of an entry in the Roll, viz., that the moneyer who
did not coin was fined for default. It would seem that in
1129 Ralph Basset, the King's Justiciary, had held an
assize in the town, at which an inquiry had been made
into the Treasury returns for the burg, and in consequence
several of its burgesses had been amerced in large fines.
It may be assumed that these burgesses held certain
offices under the Crown, and that they had failed to carry
out their duties or at least to make an adequate return
through the Sheriff to the Treasury. They were perhaps
responsible for the various customs, or even for thejirma
of the burg. But it appears that they had pleaded their
inability to pay the fines because of their poverty, and
this plea, when compared with the oft-repeated explana-
tion of the very similar passages in connection with the
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 451
auxilium and the coinage, suggests that the burg itself was
in an impoverished condition, and that therefore the
various customs for which they were responsible could not
be performed. Hence as the officials had not received
the dues they could not pay the amercements, and the
fines were in consequence reduced to merely nominal
amounts. The following is a summary of the list, although
it is always difficult in the County returns to distinguish
which entries relate to a particular burg.
Name.
Original Fine.
Nominal
Fine.
Cause of Remission.
B. d.
Hubert of Wilton .
62
8
His poverty.
Atsor of Wilton .
63 3 4
5
Ditto.
Thomas, the Money er
11 16 8
1
Ditto.
Robert Fitz Swein .
192
Nil
j He is ill, and
{ has nothing.
In the above list the name Thomas, the moneyer, is
conspicuous for it discloses his office. As the name on the
current type is Richard, we may assume that Thomas was
the other moneyer, who failed to coin when the burgesses
re-opened the mint in order to issue type 262, and that,
therefore, he was fined ; but as he evidently pleaded that
he was too poor to pay the fees and to undertake the risk,
his fine was reduced to the amount which, as before ex-
plained, seems to have been the nominal rent for a pair of
dies. It is highly improbable that if amerced in his
individual capacity he would have received any consider-
ation, or that at a later date he would ever have been
allowed to coin as he subsequently was and so we may
take it that in his official capacity he represented the
burgesses, and that his plea of poverty meant that the
452 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
small demand for currency would not support the cost
of two moneyers at Wilton and that the town was too poor
to employ or pay the fees for more than one. It is
interesting to note that when the mint was again re-
opened upon the accession of Stephen, Thomas is one of the
moneyers whose names appear upon its coins.
From other entries in the Roll it would seem that the
county was in a very disturbed state, for many burgesses
were punished for various offences and murder and robbery
were prevalent throughout.
Coinage at Wilton was continued, with similar intervals,
until the reign of Henry III.
COINS,
*IEGELPAED ON P1L *HENEI EEX 253
Spink and Son. PI. II. No. 11.
.frBEVNIG : ON : PILTV *I\ENEIE : EEX 267
British Museum. Fig 1 . 1, page 60, and PI. VIII.
No. 6. From the Brice and Montagu, 1896,
8, collections. The moneyer's name occurs
at Winchester in the previous reign.
frEIEAED ON : PILTVN ^.hENEIEYS E : 262
F. A. Walters. From the Allen Sale, 1898.
As to this moneyer, see before.
frSIEELI ON?IL .fcHEN 253
Lincoln and Son. The moneyer was, probably,
the SIEPINE and SEPINE who coined here in the
previous reign, and, possibly, the SPEIN, father
of Robert Fitz Swein, before mentioned.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 453
WINCHESTER (HAMPSHIRE).
WlNTANCEASTER, WlNCEASTER, WlTTAtiCEASTER ; Domesday,
WINCESTER and WINTONIA ; Pipe Roll, WINTONIA.
At the dawn of English history, Winchester, the Venta
Belgarum of the Legions, was one of our principal cities,
and the rectangular plan of its streets to-day is a survival
of its Roman foundation. Under the year 643 the Saxon
Chronicle tells us that Ken walk, King of the West
Saxons, commanded a church to be built at Winchester,
in the name of St. Peter, and which, upon its completion,
became the episcopal See of the West Angles. Win-
chester was the" chief city of the Kings of Wessex, and as
their government spread over the rest of the kingdom, it
became the capital of Saxon England. As such it was
the favourite meeting-place of the Witan, the centre of
the Exchequer system, and the stronghold of the royal
treasury. In 860 the city was stormed by the Danes,
and in 1013 it submitted to Sweyn, but it seems to have
suffered little at their hands, and at the date of the
Conquest vied with London as the most prosperous city in
the kingdom.
1086. Domesday notes. Although Winchester is often
incidentally mentioned, its returns are omitted from
the Survey. As in the case of London it is sug-
gested that a similar local record was at the time
already in existence, but was lost prior to 1116,
perhaps destroyed in the fire of 1102, for Henry I
caused a new survey of the city to be made.
1100. At the date of Henry's accession the See had been
vacant for nearly three years. The King, following
the example of Rufus, immediately possesses him-
self of the royal treasure. He appoints William
Giffard, his chancellor, Bishop of Winchester, but the
bishop elect refuses consecration pending settlement
of the controversy as to investitures.
TOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. " X
454 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
August-September. Henry meets Duke Robert at "Wh
Chester preparatory to the treaty of peace.
1102. "A fire broke out in the centre of this city, whicl
destroyed the royal palace, the mint, &c., and a great
proportion of the inhabitants' houses." (Ruding, ii.,
173.)
1103. Bishop William joins Anselm in exile. (Florence.)
1107. August. Is consecrated by Anselm.
October 7. Fall of the Cathedral Tower. (Annals of
Winchester.)
1111. "The King commands that the new monastery,
which stood within the walls of Winchester, should,
under the direction of Bishop William, be rebuilt
without the walls." (Florence.)
The Bishop, whether he wishes or not, has to give 800
marks to the King. (Annals of Winchester.)
1121. January 30. Bishop William officiates at the
King's second marriage. (Florence.)
1125. Christmas. The great inquisition of the moneyers
is held at Winchester. See pages 80 and 81.
1128. William Giffard, Bishop of Winchester, dies.
(Annals of Winchester.)
1129. " Henry, the nephew of King Henry, son of his
sister Adela, brother of Stephen . . . afterwards
King, from being Abbot of Glastonbury became
Bishop of Winchester." (Annals of Winchester.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The sheriff accounts for the
auxdium of the city at 114 shillings as arrears of the
year 1127-28, 17 Is. 8d.as arrears of the year 1128-29,
and '80 for the current year. The Guilds of the Cloth-
weavers and Fullers are mentioned, and reference is
made to the fact that the bishop had previously been
Abbot of Glastonbury. Certain entries relating to
moneyers will be detailed below.
1134. Bishop Henry fulfils the office of Legate in
England. (Annals of Winchester.)
1135. At the King's death " an immense treasure hac
been accumulating for many years ; his coin, and that
of the best quality, was estimated at 100,000 ; be-
sides which, there were vessels of gold and silver of
great weight and inestimable value, collected [at the
Winchester treasury] by the magnificence of pre-
ceding kings, but chiefly by Henry." (Malmes-
bury. )
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 455
1100-1135. When in England the King's Court was
usually held, either, at Winchester or Westminster
throughout the reign.
Coinage at "Winchester must have originated long
before the time when it became customary to add the
place of mintage upon the money, for its name first
appears on the coins of Alfred. Athelstan, by his Law,
established six moneyers here, thus showing that the mint
was already one of the most important in the Kingdom,
and it maintained its royal character until its close in the
reign of Henry III. We have specimens of it of the
reigns of Athelstan and Eadwig, 'and of all the latter's
successors to Henry III.
To meet the exigencies of the Dane-gelt, Ethelred II
seems to have doubled the number of his moneyers at
Winchester, but subsequently they were gradually
decreased until, from a careful examination of the coins
of the two Williams, after the usual allowances have
been made for changes during the currency of a type, it
seems certain that the number had then been restored to
the original six.
This is important in view of the Survey, known to us
as the " Winton Domesday," for, as we shall presently
see, the study of numismatics will assist us in ascertaining
its approximate date. This Survey comprises two distinct
records which, except for the fact that they have been
preserved together, have no more to do with each other
than two Pipe Rolls would have if separated in date by
some thirty years. The earlier of these two records is, as
its introduction tells us, an inquest of the lands which
used to pay land and burg tax to the King in the time of
Edward the Confessor, and which the then King
[Henry I], being desirous of ascertaining what King
456 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Edward had held in lordship in Winchester, ordered to be
made upon the oaths of the burgesses. An inquest was
accordingly held by four score and six superior burgesses
in the presence of William, the Bishop, Herbert, the
Chamberlain, Ralph Basset, Geoffrey Ridel, and William
de Pont-de-1'Arche. The later record, which, except for
the purpose of incidental reference, does not now concei
us, is an enquiry made by Bishop Henry in 1148 as
the lands of the Bishopric at Winchester.
King Henry's Inquest is undated and, although model
historians may have more closely ascertained its year, the
writer is unaware of any nearer approximation than that
of the Editors of Domesday, viz., some time between 1107
and 1128. If, therefore, the study of numismatics can
throw light upon its true date it is but another proof of
the historical value of our coinage.
The Inquest tells us that " in the market there had
been five mints [i.e. moneyers] which were abolished by
order of the King [Henry I]," and therefore, as we have
seen that there were not more than six moneyers in Win-
chester at the death of Rufus this would only leave one
moneyer in office. Such is exactly what the evidence of
our coins discloses must have happened immediately upon
Henry's accession; for upon his first type, 251 (1100-
1102), the names of two moneyers appear, on his third,
(his second being absent), 253 (1104-1106), that of one
moneyer, on his fourth, 252 (1106-1108), the names of
two, on his fifth, 256 (1108-1110), that of one, on his
sixth, 257 (1110-1112), that of one ; and so on up to his
thirteenth type, which after allowing for the fact that
the mint would, like the shrievalty, be farmed by the year
to the favoured applicant, only accounts for a single
moneyer at a time. On Henry's thirteenth type, 265
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 457
(1126-1128), some at least of the five moneyers must have
been restored, for we find five names upon it, and on the
following type the number exactly corresponds with the
complement of six moneyers at Winchester. Therefore
as the Inquest was made whilst the five moneyers were
still in abeyance, it must have been compiled after 1100,
and before 1126. Another passage, however, materially
shortens the period ; it is that " the widow of WIMVND
the moneyer now pays tax at 6d. for one house and no
other customs and is at the hospital." Two Wimunds
coined in the reign, doubtless father and son. We find
the name of the former as WIMVND on coins issued at
Winchester late in the time of William I, on those of
William II, and on most of the types struck during the
first half of the reign of Henry I, the latest being type
267 (1112-1114) ; therefore the date of the Inquest could
not be earlier than 1112, for he was living in the autumn,
of that year. The second Wimund did not commence
his coinage until after 1128, and therefore does not affect
the question. So far this is direct evidence, but we may
infer that the date must have been prior to 1121, when
on type IY. (1121 -1123) the name EN6ELEAM appears.
The name is unusual, and does not occur in the whole of
this Inquest ; hence Engelram could not have held any
official appointment, or even been a tenant of the King's,
when the Inquest was made. He continued to coin in the
reign of Stephen, and consequently his name appears in
the 1148 Survey, but its absence from the earlier roll is
the more significant when we notice that prior to 1121
the office of moneyer had been held in various years-
by five moneyers, viz., WIMVND, 60DPINE, A1NVLF
[Arnulf], SAIET, and AILJ7INE, and all of these names
appear amongst the lists of the King's tenants. We may
458
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
therefore narrow the date to between 1112 and 1121.
The identification of the above moneyers will be apparent
from the following table, which includes some of the five
moneyers of the Confessor's time whose office was vacant
at the date of the Inquest.
Tenant under the Confessor.
Name on the Confessor's
Coins.
Tenant of same
property at date
of Inquest.
Name on
Henry I's Coins.
Alwine Aitardessone,
ALPINE . .
Godfrey de
MPI6 and
the moneyer.
Colcha
EfiEPIG,
Alwin
Chiping fitz
MP1NG
Alwin
(Stephen).
Godwine Socche, the
GODPINE . .
The Monks
chief moneyer.
of St.
Swithin's.
SIDELOE on
The widow
PIMVND.
Wa r e h a m
of Wim-
coins of
und, the
William I.
moneyer.
See page 449.
Andrebode, the
ANDREBODE
Ruald fitz
moneyer.
Faderlin.
Alward fitz Etard,
ZELPERD on
Godwine
GODPINE.
" moneyer to King
Shaftesbury
and others
Edward."
coins. See
page 407.
Alestan, the moneyer
ADESTAN
WigotDelinc
DERLINE
onWareham
coins, 1112-
1114. See
page 441.
Brunstan Blachebiert,
BRVNSTAN .
Saiet Arnulf
SAIET
Brunstan.
and Ulf.
AINVLF
VLFPTNE.
Brithmar "Aurifaber"
BRIHTMZER .
Deria . .
GODPINE-EE
Balvert .
-OEA
Alnod Stud' . . .
Odo, the
moneyer
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 459
In the above list it will be noticed that only in two cases
is the title Monetarius given to any of King Henry's
tenants, and yet in five instances of the Confessor's tenants
it occurs, and Aurifaber (" the goldsmith," but often used
after a moneyer's name) makes the sixth. Hence we may
infer that the title, like that of Sheriff, was only appended
to the names of those who were actually in office during
the current year, viz., in the one case that of the death of
the Confessor, and in the other that of the date of the
Inquest. The two instances in Henry's reign are (1)
WIMVND, but as this occurs in the description of his widow,
it merely suggests that he had died in office, (2) " Odo the
money er "; Odo ought therefore to be the name on the
current type, but it is as yet missing from our specimens.
This is the more remarkable as every other name to which
the title is appended, either in this Inquest or in that of
1148, can be identified upon our coins. When, there-
fore, we notice the further coincidence that within the
limits of time to which we have now reduced the date of
the Inquest, i.e. 1112, or more probably 1114, to 1121,
there is a type missing also from the Winchester coins,
namely, 264 for the years 1116-1119, we are almost
justified in assuming that Odo's name would be found upon
it, that it was the current type and that the actual date of
the Inquest must be between Michaelmas 1116 and
Michaelmas 1119.
Glancing, for a moment, at the internal evidence the
Roll contains, we find that this date is within the broader
limits it allows. Baldwin de Redvers is mentioned, and
therefore the record could not be earlier than 1107, and
was probably not prior to 1112, seepages 192-3. - Assum-
ing in another instance that the name Robert Maleductus
represents Robert Malconduit, who was drowned in the
460 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
White Ship, 1120 would be the later limit of date; but
as Geoffrey Ridel, before whom the Inquest was made,
died in that year (Feudal England), further evidence is
unnecessary.
To return to the date of Henry's accession. It is difficult
to follow his object in suppressing the five money ers, as it
of course meant a considerable loss to his Exchequer, for
Winchester was a royal mint. Their names, as taken
from the coins of Rufus, were, probably, .ZElfgserd, ^Estan,
Colbern, Edric and Lifwold, and as none of them appear to
have subsequently coined elsewhere, it is possible that they
were convicted of false coining and therefore punished.
(Compare the contemporary event at Worcester, page 476.)
But this would scarcely account for their offices remaining
vacant, at so important a city as this, for so long a period,
and therefore it is more reasonable to suppose that the
following incident, in which, no doubt, the citizens were
directly concerned, prejudiced ihe feelings of the King
towards them from the outset, and that he deliberately
crippled the prestige of their city until it sank to be but
the second in importance in England. The facts remain
that London under his encouragement finally assumed
the foremost position and that Duke Robert's advance
towards Winchester in 1101 seemed to point to a well-
recognised expectation of support in that city.
1100. From the scene of the death of Rufus "Prince
Henry lost no time in riding as fast as his horse could
carry him to Winchester, where the royal treasure
was kept, and imperiously demanded the keys from
the keepers, as the lawful heir. William de Breteuil
arrived at the same instant with breathless haste, for
he anticipated Henry's deep policy and resolved to
oppose it [in favour of Duke Robert]. . . . There
was now a sharp contention between them and crowds
flocked round them from all quarters ; but the influence
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 461
of an heir present in person to claim his rights began
to prevail. Henry, hastily seizing his sword, drew
it ... but the quarrel abated on one side and
the other and, by a wise resolution to prevent a serious
rupture, the castle with the royal treasures was
given up to Henry." (Mr. Forester's Orderic.)
As a royal mint we should expect a complete sequence
of Henry's types at Winchester, but the absence of type
264 has already been disclosed and only two others are
missing. The first of these is 254 (1102-1104) and as
the Annals of Winchester record that in 1102 " Win-
chester was burnt," and Huding adds that " the fire broke
out in the centre of the city and destroyed the royal
palace, the mint, &c., and a great proportion of the
inhabitants' houses," we can well understand why the
coinage was temporarily discontinued. The second miss-
ing type is 258 (1123-1125, Christmas), and is that which
caused the great Inquisition of the Moneyers at Win-
chester, at Christmas, 1125. Ruding, quoting the Annals
of Winchester, tells us that all the moneyers [of England]
were found guilty of the frauds imputed to them except
three persons of that profession in this city " [Winchester],
and, upon the authority of the History of Winchester,
that, " to the above mentioned artists of Winchester was
therefore committed the charge of making a new coinage
to supply the whole kingdom." (See ante, pages 80-81.)
But, unfortunately, the Annals of Winchester say nothing
of the kind. What they do say is " All the moneyers
of the kingdom except three were mutilated at Win-
chester," which is a very different story. In conse-
quence of the absence in Normandy of the King and of
nearly all the grantees of the chartered mints, it is probable
that all the moneyers of the kingdom who were coining
in type 258 did not represent more than a dozen mints.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES.
462 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Moreover there was then only a single moneyer in office at
Winchester and if ever a coin of type 258 is forthcoming
we may almost expect to find Odo's name upon it and the
Inquisition would account for his final disappearance.
It is true that there were still living in Winchester
Engelram and Saiet who had coined on previous types, for
they survived the Inquisition and subsequently coined ;
but as the moneyer seems to have been changed almost
yearly, it is more probable that the missing Odo was in
office at the time, and so convicted with the majority, than
that Engelram and Saiet were amongst the three acquitted.
The general calling in of the base money would account
for the absence to-day of a Winchester coin of the type.
The Inquisition caused a general revival of coinage
throughout the country, and so Henry restored to Win-
chester its six money ers in 1126. Or at least he materially
increased the number then, for five names appear upon its
type 265 (1126-1128) and six upon 262 (1128-1131.)
This brings us to the Pipe Roll of 1130 in which two
entries directly concern our subject. " Saiet the moneyer
owes 278 marks of silver upon a plea of two dies." This
is, of course, the SAIET of the Inquest and of types 252
(1106-8), 266 (1114-1116), 263 (1119-1121), 265(1126-
1128), and the current type 262 (1128-1131). His name
also appears in the next type 255 (1131-1135), and in the
reign of Stephen. This latter fact suggests that the entry
cannot be the record of a fine, for in that case he ought to
have lost his office, nor can it represent the fee payable for
new dies, as the fees, according to Domesday, were usually
a mark and a half. It would seem, therefore, to be the
assessment for the purchase of two dies, i.e., the offices of
two additional moneyers at Winchester ; and, curiously
enough, on the next type, 255 (1131-1135) the number of
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY 1. 463
moneyers and therefore of dies is increased by two, for
the number of moneyers is then represented by nine names,
which doubtless meant eight at a time.
One of these dies Saiet appears to have given to his
nephew Alfric, for the second item in the 1130 Roll is,
" Alfric the nephew of Saiet accounts for 24 marks of silver
for /also cypho, pays 4, and owes 18 marks of silver." This
passage evidently puzzled the learned historian Freeman,
for in his copy he has underlined and queried the word
cypho. It may be that, as one of the King's goldsmiths,
Alfric had supplied a scyphus, or chalice, light in weight,
or that he had used a false measure ; cyphus being some-
times used as a goblet of legal measure. Or but this is
perhaps scarcely more than conjecture that as a money er
he had used a false design, for, as explained in a similar
instance on page 335, the word may be a graphical error
for typo = a figure. It is possible that he had either
used an obsolete die, and issued what we know as
a, " mule " coin, or perhaps that he had anticipated
his own dies by using those of his uncle Saiet. But
this fact we have, viz., that his name now first appears
on type 262 (1128-1131), which is the current type.
In view of his relationship to Saiet, and of the general
custom amongst the moneyers, as explained on page 29,
of retaining the office in their own families, and again
of the presumed purchase by Saiet at this date of the
right to two additional dies, there seems to be little doubt
that Alfric, the nephew of Saiet of the Roll, was the same
person as ALFEIE, the moneyer on the current type. But
whatever his offence was, the entry against him must
have been more in the nature of an amercement than of a
fine, for his is, perhaps, the only instance in the Roll in
which, under similar circumstances, a moneyer was subse-
464 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
quently allowed to retain his office. That he did so is
rendered almost certain by the same name appearing on
the following type, 255 (1131-1135).
At the same time that the right to two additional dies was,
as contended, given to Saiet, it is probable that King
Henry granted to the citizens of Winchester a charter,
very similar in its character to those which he then gave
to London, Norwich, &c., for Henry II and Richard I, in
confirming it, used precisely the same formula, in except-
ing their moneyers from the privilege of refusing to
plead without the walls of Winchester, as they did in
their similar charters to those cities. See pages 284 and
333. This, as at London and Norwich, would not only
account for the increased number of moneyers' names
which we find on the Winchester coins of type 255 (1131-
1135), but also for the grant of the two additional dies to
Saiet. May we not, from this, assume that, like Godwin
Socche in the days of the Confessor, Saiet, who had held
office, intermittently, for many more years than any of his
colleagues, was now the magister monetarius, or senior
moneyer, of Winchester ?
COINS.
J.AILPAKD ON PINEE *hENEIEV 255
Watford find. The moneyer continued to coin
for Stephen.
J.AILPAKD ON PINE *I\ENRIEVS 255
Hunterian Museum ; Benwell Sale, 1849.
^.AILPINE ON PINE . ^.fiENEIE : REX 26S
F. E. Whelan. As to this moneyer, see before.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE KE1GN OF HENRr I. 465
. . . LPINE ON PI ... . IxENRIEVS REX 262
Watford find. As to the obverse legend, see
the London coin of RAPVLF of this type,
p. 306.
ON PINEE .frtiENEI . BE 252
Spink and Son. As to this moneyer, see
before.
*AINVLF ON PINEE *I\ENRI BEX 252
Spink and Son.
. .NPI..E: *Ii..RIREX 252
L. A. Lawrence. 20 grs.
* ____ LF : ON : PINEES . IiENRI . . . R : 265
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton ; S. Smith; Sale,
January, 1860. This moneyer was probably
eon of the above. Or, perhaps, the letters
stand for VLF.
*. . F ON PIN ^.hENRIEVS 255
Benwell Sale, 1849.
*ALFR[I]E ON PIN *hENRIEVS R 262
J. Verity. As to this moneyer, see before.
*AL . . . . ON PIN *hENRIEVS R 262
Engraved, Withy and Ryall, II., 8. The en-
graver has misread the moneyer s name
as ALEN. See page 117.
466 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
J.ALFEIEVS . . PINE .frhENEIE . . 255
Watford find ; P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton.
frALFBIEVS : ON : PIN *I\ENEIEV : 255
British Museum ; Royal Mint collection, from
a reading supplied by Mr. Hocking.
.J.ALFEIE : ON : PINEE i *hENEIEVS : 255
Watford find ; British Museum ; Peace Sale,
1894, corrected ; Spink and Son.
PINEES *hEN...YS 255,
Royal Mint collection, per Mr. Hocking,
frALFEIE ON PINEE .frlxENEIEVS 255,
Lincoln and Son ; A. H. Sadd.
*ALFEIE ON PIN ^IxENEIEVS : 255
British Museum ; Benwell Sale, 1849.
frALPOLD : ON : EINE ifhENEIEV : 255
British Museum. This moneyer continued to
coin for Stephen. Compare the E for P in
EINE with the P in PIMVNT on PI. III.
No. 4, where the base line of the I gives an
appearance of E to the P, and which
accounts for the name having often been
read EIMVNT.
*E[NGE]LEAM : ON P : *I\eNEIEVS EG IV
S. Page. As to this moneyer, see before.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 467
.frENGELEAM ON PIN 265
DurrantSale, 1847, 3 Is.; Bergne Sale, 1878,
3 ; Wakeford Sale, 1879, 4.
^E[NSELEAM] ON : PIN : .hENE ..... 262
Watford find. This moneyer's name is assumed
from the length of space. As to the orna-
ment of pellets, see page 91, and a similar
instance below under LEFPINE.
frGODPINE ON PINE .frHNEI E ANG 251
J. Eashleigh. From the Martin Sale, 1859,
8 3s. Engraved, Olla Podrida, page 44.
As to this moneyer, see before.
.&60DPINE O:NPIM ^RENEI EEX 253
Sir John Evans. PI. II., No. 13.
*60DPINE : OIPDCE : *I\ElsRIE EEX 257
Hunterian Museum. PI. III., No. 9. Obverse,
three annulets on the drapery of the breast.
. ON . PITCEE : .frhENEIEVS EEX 267
Sir John Evans. PL IV., No. 3.
ON PINEE 267
Bari find.
*60TPINE : ON : PINEE . *IxENEIE EEX 266
Spink and Son, 20 grs. From the Warne,
1889, and Montagu, 1896, 4 10s. Sales.
Mr. F. Spicer has a rubbing of a brass
468 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
fibula, said to have been found in tbe City of
London, which is an exact representation of
this reverse, both as to type and legend,
including, in the latter, even the colons of
division and the T instead of D, save that
the last five letters are GLOEE for Glouces-
ter.
frGODPINE ON PINE ^IiENEIEVS 255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; Lincoln and Son.
frGODPira ON PIN : *I\ 255
Watford find, 2 specimens ; Royal Mint collec-
tion.
. PIG : ON : PINE : AIxENEIE : 255
Watford find. This moneyer continued to
coin for Stephen as PIPING, KIPIN6 and
EhEPIG, see before.
: ON PINEES 265
Spink and Son.
J.LEFPINE ON PINEE : -frlxENEIEVS 262
Watford find.
frLEFPINE ON : PIN : *I\ENEIEVS : 262
Watford find. As to the ornament of pellets,
see page 91, and a coin of ENGELEAM.
^.SAIET ON PINEEST *hEN . . EEX 252
University Library, Cambridge. As to this
moneyer, see before.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 469
*SAIET ON P . . E . *hENRI RE 252
Sir John Evans. 22 grs. The coin mentioned
on page 55.
*SAET .. .INEE *hEN 252
F. E. Whelan.
*SA . . . ON PINEE : *I\ENRI REX 252
Capt. K. J. H. Douglas. PI. IV., No. 3.
.frSAIET ON PINEESTR *I\ENRI REX 266
Engraved, Withy and Ryall, II., 4 ; Snelling,
I., 16, and Kuding, Sup. I., 13. Obi-ere,
two stars in the field and the third at the end
of the legend. The legend is corrected from
.J. SAIN ON PINTRSIR, and a pellet repre-
sents the third star on the obverse as en-
graved. As to this coin, see page 67.
frSAIET : ON : PINEESTRE .frhENRI : RE 263
J. S. Henderson. PI. V., No. 1. From the
Webb Sale, 1894, 7 5s. and, probably, the
Wylie Sale, 1882, 11.
.J.SAIED : ON . PINEES : *I\ENRIEVS : R 265
British Museum.
*SA . . . . N PIN . *hENRIE . . . 262
Lincoln and Son.
*SAIET ON P1NEEST ^hENRIEVS: 255
British Museum ; Sheriff Mackenzie.
VOL. I- FOURTH SERIES. " P
470 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
frSAIET ON PINEES *I\ENEIEVS
Watford find, 7 specimens.
*.. .ET ON PINE
Battle find.
*SAIE . . . . IN :
Sir John Evans.
[*SA]IETTVS : ON . .
J. Verity.
[*SIP]AEN : ON PIN
EN . . EV.
255
255
255
255
ENEIEVS E : 255
British Museum. Compare the next coin, but
the moneyer may be WAEN.
*SIPAED ON ...
. . NBIEVS
255
Watford find. SIPAED coined here for Stephen
and is mentioned as a moneyer in the Win-
ton Domesday of 1148.
[ * STIE]FNE : ON : PI . . 255
Royal Mint collection. Stephen continued to
coin here in the following reign.
*.T[OVI : ON] PINEES : . hENEIEVS : 255
F. Spicer. From the Montagu Sale, 1897.
*[T]OVI ON PINEES *hEN 255
Watford find, 2 specimens.
frVLFPINE ON PINE 267
Bari find. But the reading is queried by Sir
John Evans in his account of the hoard.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 471
*PIMYND ON PIN: .frHNEI EEX N 251
P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. As to this money er,
see before, also under the coin reading
.frALPOLD : ON : EINE, above.
.frPIMVNT : ON : PIN *I\ENEI EEX 256
British Museum. PI. III., No. 4, and Fig. F,
page 56. From the Cuff, 1854, 4 4s.,
Murchison, 1864, 4 10s., Whitbourn, 1869,
2 7s., Brice and Montagu, 1896, 5, collec-
tions.
*[PIM]VINT : ON PINE . . . NEIE EEX 267
Sir John Evans. PL IV., No. 4. Variety C,
page 64.
i[PIMV]NT ON . .NE 262
Watford find.
*PIM[V]N[T ON] PINEE . I\ENE 255
British Museum.
J.PIM PIN . RENE 255
Watford find.
*. ANDVS : ON : PIEES : *hENEIEVS 265
British Museum.
* : ON: PINE IEVS 262
W. C. Boyd. From the Milford Haven find.
Tyssen Sale, 1802 265
262
Tyssen, Hoare, 1850; Pershouse, 1862 Harrison, 255
1865, Brown, 1869, etc., etc., Sales.
472
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
WORCESTER.
WlHRACE ASTER, WlHEKCE ASTER, WlGERCEASTER, WlGORNA-
CEASTER, WlGORNIA, GlJIGRESTENSIS J Domesday, WlRE-
CESTER ; Pipe Roll, WIREC' and WIGREC'.
" The faithful city of Worcester," as a glance at the
rectangular formation of its streets will to-day remind us,
was once an important station of Roman England. It
probably fell into the hands of the Saxons with Glouces-
ter, Cirencester, and Bath, in 577, and in 679 its See was
founded. A charter of Ethelfleda tells us that the burg
was to be fortified against the Danes, and a third of the
royal dues and market tolls to be devoted to the Church.
In 1041 King Harthacnut ravaged and burnt the city,
because two of his collectors of the Danegeld had been
slain " in an upper chamber of the abbey tower, where
they had concealed themselves during a tumult."
(Florence.) The fire probably destroyed the early monas-
tery, for in 1058 Bishop Aldred dedicated to St. Peter
" the church which he had built from its foundations in
the city of Worcester."
1086. Domesday notes. " In the city of Worcester
King Edward had this custom. When the money
was changed [i.e. a new type issued] each moneyer
gave twenty shillings to London for receiving the
[new] money dies." The King had 10 from the
city and Earl Edwin 8. The King received no
other custom save the usual house-tax.
Now the King has in lordship both the King's share
and that of the Earl, which return to the Sheriff 28 5s.
by weight. From the city and the King's manors
123 4s. is paid. " In the time of King Edward the
Bishop had the tertins denarius from the burg of
Worcester, and now he has it [jointly] with the
King and Earl. Then it was 6. Now it is 8."
1108. Death of Urso d'Abetot, castellan of Worcester.
(Geof. de Hand.)
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY 1. 473
1112. May 9th. Death of Samson, Bishop of Worcester,
1096-1112.
1113. June 19th. "The city of Worcester, together
with the cathedral and all the other churches, and
also the castle, were destroyed by fire." (Florence.)
Dec. 28th. Theowulf, the King's chaplain, ap-
pointed bishop.
1115. June 27th. Is consecrated.
1123. Oct. 20th. His death.
1125. Simon, the Queen's chancellor, appointed bishop
in Normandy.
May 25th. Consecrated at Canterbury.
1129. Christmas. King Henry holds his Court at
Worcester. (Huntingdon.) Hoveden, erroneously,
gives this date as 1181.
1130. Pipe Boll notes. From the Roll, as we have it,
the returns for this county are missing, and there are
therefore only incidental references to the city under
other headings. One of these enters certain expenses
which were probably incurred at the Christmas
Court of 1129. Walter de Beauchamp [castellan of
Worcester and hereditary Sheriff of the shire] is
often mentioned.
1133. "In the month of November the city of Worcester
was exposed to the ravages of fire, a frequent occur-
rence." (Florence.)
The mint of Worcester seems to have been one of the
many established by Ethelred II to facilitate the collec-
tion of the Danegeld in coin, and was continued by all his
successors until the reign of Henry II, or perhaps a little
later.
A study of Domesday tells us that although each
moneyer of Worcester in the reign of the Confessor paid 20s.
to London, i.e. to the King's aurifaber, for his dies whenever
a new type was issued, it was one of the customs by which
the citizens held their city, and, therefore, by inference,
as they were responsible for such payment, the mint must
have been farmed to them. Under the current year of
the Survey, 1086, however, there is no reference to the
474 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
continuance of this custom, but it will be noticed, on the
other hand, that the firma paid to the King and Earl,
which had been 18 in the Confessor's time, is now
raised to 23 5s. by weight. Of this increase of 5 5s.,
the King's proportionate share would be 2 18s. 4d. by
weight, or, say, 3 by number, and from that again had
to be deducted the third penny of the Bishop, which
would leave a net increase of 2 a year to the King as
such, although, the earldom being then extinct, he actually
received not only his own share, but also that of the
Earl. Now, turning to the coins of William I, we find
that there were four moneyers at Worcester at the date of
Domesday, and, as it was then customary to " change the
money " every two years, this annual increase of 2
exactly corresponds with the surrender value of the 20s.
from each of the four moneyers when a new type was
issued.
This may be a mere coincidence, and it is not proffered
at much more than that, but the fact remains that in
1086 the moneyers' custom is no longer recorded in the
Survey as being then in existence, and therefore we may
assume that the mint was farmed to the citizens, as were
so many royal mints, in the firma of their city. The
writ of Henry I, presently recorded, too, corroborates this
inference. The mint cannot have followed the tertius
denarius of Worcester, for it was evidently a royal mint,
although farmed to the citizens by custom, in the time of
the Confessor, when the same conditions prevailed.
Originally, the Earl probably received the tertius denarius
of the city, although at the death of the Confessor it was
represented by 8, instead of 6, out of the firma or
what was the precursor of the firma of 18, and the
King and he seem to have jointly created a second tertius
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 475
denarius, and granted it to the Bishop. Here, again, the
annual value of the mint, at 2 as above, steps in, for if,
instead of the usual transfer of the mint, the Earl received
its annual value because it was retained by the King, we
have the explanation why, in the division of the original
tertim denarius, the Earl received exactly 2 more than
his share, and the King so much the less.
Passing on to the accession of Henry I, we approach a
remarkable writ concerning the coinage of Worcester-
shire, which Ruding (vol. i., p. 164) assigns to the year
1118, " or possibly a little earlier." But so late a date as
this is out of the question, for it is addressed to Samson,
Bishop of Worcester, and Urso d'Abetot, the sheriff, of
whom the former died in 1112, and the latter as early as
in 1108. Ruding quotes it from an extract made by
Mr. G. North from Lib. Rub. Scacc., fol. 163b, but the
names of the witnesses are omitted, and so the usual
means of closely approximating the date are absent. But
it bears internal evidence of being earlier than Christ-
mas, 1103, for at the Council of London held on that
occasion, the punishment for falsifying the money, which,
up to that date, had been that described in the writ, was
increased by the addition of loss of sight. Finally, if
we compare its wording with that of the passage quoted
on page 45 from Henry's Coronation Charter of 1100,
the two documents would seem to be contemporary.
Its date, therefore, may be accepted as immediately
after the King's accession. The following is a slightly
modernised version :
" [Henry, King of England] to Samson, Bishop of Worcester,
Urso d'Abetot, and all his barons, both Norman and English
in Worcestershire, commanded that all burgesses, and all other
persons dwelling in burgs, as well Norman as English, should
476
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
swear to preserve and uphold the King's money in England,
and not to debase it. And .if anyone should be found with
false money upon him, and should not be able to clear himself
from the charge of falsifying it, or to prove from whom he
received the false coins, he should suffer the loss of his right
hand and mutilation. Also that no moneyer should exchange
money, except in his own county, and that in the presence of
two credible witnesses of the same county ; and if he should
be taken exchanging money in any other county, he should be
punished as a false moneyer. Likewise that no person, except
he were a moneyer, should presume to exchange money."
So drastic a writ was not sent down from the King's
Court for nothing, and as that of Worcester was the only
mint in the county, it proves that the moneyers must
have been not only debasing the coinage, but holding the
exchange outside their jurisdiction. The latter charge
suggests a possible explanation for the remarkable coin-
cidence that after the first two types of William I,
Worcester and Bristol issue exactly the same types
throughout the reigns of the two Williams. No doubt
Bristol was then rapidly coming to the front as a mari-
time trade centre, and perhaps the moneyers of Worcester
found it more profitable to resort to its market than to
await the slow demand for exchange in their inland city.
Something of the kind, perhaps, also led to the contem-
porary abolition of the five moneyers in the market at
Winchester (page 460).
The immediate effect of the writ would be that in, or
about, 1100 Urso d'Abetot, as Sheriff, would hold an
Inquisition of the moneyers at Worcester. Their names
at the close of the reign of Rufus were BALDEIE,
EASTALZEB, 60DPINE and SEPINE, and as they cannot be
identified on any of the coins of King Henry, there seems
little doubt that they were convicted of the offences
specified in the writ and so disappeared from office. But
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 477
the verdict of the Inquisition would, it is submitted, be
more serious even than this, for it is evident that the
affairs of the mint had come io such a pass that in
its particular case the King had resorted to a remedy,
as evidenced by his writ, for which we have to look to
the great Inquisition of the money ers of the whole of the
country, in 1125, to find a parallel. Therefore the coin-
cidence of the absence, to-day, of any coins bearing the
name of Worcester of those types which represent the
first twenty years of Henry's reign, points to the pro-
bability that the mint itself was disfranchised for that
period ; or, to adapt the wording of the record in the
Winton Domesday of the similar and contemporary inci-
dent at Winchester, that " in the market there had been
four money ers, who were abolished by order of the King."
The death of Prince William, the King's only son,
in the shipwreck of 1120, as Mr. Round remarks, brought
Robert fitz-Regis, as the favourite and eldest of the
King's natural issue, within the possibilities of the succes-
sion, for the bar sinister was no estoppel under the
Norman Constitutional law. This led to momentous
results in the Western Counties, for at Easter, 1121, Henry
held his court at Berkeley, and, as deduced on page 125,
created Robert Earl of Gloucester, and, as such, Lord
Paramount of the West. At this court the citizens of
Worcester probably petitioned for and obtained the
restoration of their ancient privilege, although it appears
to have been now limited to one moneyer only at a time,
for the mint is reopened and type IV (1121-1123) appears.
This is followed by types 265 (1126-1128) and 262 (1128-
1131), but the last type of the reign, 255, is as yet
missing, and as the Pipe Roll returns for Worcester are
wanting, no explanation of its absence is forthcoming.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES.
478
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
COINS.
frGODEIE : O . PIEEEES
. . EIEVS E : 265
British Museum. From the Durrant, 1847,
2 10s., and, probably, the Tyssen, 1802,
Sales. This moneyer coined here in the
following reign.
frPVLFEIE : ON PIEE ^IxENEIEVS EEX : IV
British Museum. PI. V., No. 7. From the
Cuff Sale, 1854, and sketched by him in his,
now Mr. Webster's, copy of Ruding.
OPV]LFEI[E : O]N : PIEEE . KENE EX 262
The Victoria Institute, Worcester. Lent by
the Committee of the Corporation. The
moneyer Wulfric continued to coin in the
following reign ; but it is not quite certain
that the letters on this coin do not repre-
sent PALTEE.
YORK.
EOFERWIC, EVEBWIC, EBOBAciA-CiviTAS, EwBEHic ; Domesday,
EBOBACUM ; Pipe Roll, EVEBWIC.
The city of York discloses vestiges of architecture of
every age in the history of Britain. The Romans found
it, even then, an ancient city, and chose it as their strong-
hold in the North, where Hadrian flourished, and Severus
and Constantius Chlorus died. Upon the exodus of the
legions, York was occupied by the Picts and Scots until
wrested from them by the Saxon invaders. In the seventh
century was laid the foundation of the Church of St.
Peter, and with it that of the great archbishopric. The
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 479
city at an early date fell into the hands of the Danes and
became the seat of government of the Kings of North-
umbria of that race ; but under their rule it prospered, and
at the close of the Saxon era it was the flourishing and
populous metropolis of the North. In the troubles follow-
ing the Conquest York suffered more severely than any
city in England, for it was devastated by fire and sword
until it was left an almost depopulated waste of ashes.
1086. Domesday notes. In the city of York in the
time of King Edward, in addition to the ward of the
Archbishop there were six wards ; one of these was
absorbed in the castle. In the remaining five there
v/ere -1,418 inhabited houses. From one of these
wards the Archbishop had the third part, and all
the customs from his own ward. The city was then
assessed to the King at 53 by weight.
Of the above-mentioned houses there are now in
the King's hand, returning custom, 391 of all sorts
and 400 uninhabited, some returning more and others
less than one penny, 540 are waste, returning nothing,
and 145 are tenanted by Normans. The holdings of
various feudatories are given, including " Nigel de
Monnevile has one house of a certain moneyer," and
the city fosse is mentioned. The city is [? nominally]
assessed to the King at 100 by weight.
In the Archbishop's ward there were in King
Edward's time 189 houses, now there are 100, great
and small, in addition to the Archbishop's court and
the "houses of the canons." In his ward the Arch-
bishop has as much as the King has in his wards.
1100. November 18th. Thomas, Archbishop of York,
dies. (Florence.)
He is succeeded by Gerard, Bishop of Hereford.
1108. Archbishop Gerard dies " before Pentecost."
Thomas, provost of Beverley, is appointed Arch-
bishop. (S. of Durham.)
1109. June 27th. Is consecrated at London. (S. of
Durham.)
1114. February 24th. His death. (S. of Durham.)
August 15th. Thurstan, the King's Chaplain, is
appointed Archbishop. (S. of Durham.)
480 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
1115. The dispute arises, on the question of Thurstan's
consecration, as to the supremacy of the See of
Canterbury.
1116. Thurstan refuses to accept consecration if coupled
with subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury and
accompanies Henry to Normandy. (S. of Durham.)
1117. Thence he visits the Pope and returns to York.
(Annals of Winchester.)
1119. October 20th. He attends the Council at Rheims
and is consecrated by the Pope. (S. of Durham.)
King Henry prohibits his return to England. (S.
of Durham.)
1122-23. Under pressure from the Pope Henry reluctantly
revokes his banishment.
1122. December 6th. The King, "who was then taking
a survey of Northumbria," visits York. (Orderic.)
1128. Thurstan visits Eome and, returning, remains
with the King in Normandy. (Florence.)
1125. Again visits Rome. (Huntingdon.)
1126. Christmas. Thurstan, as the elder Archbishop,
attempts to take precedence of the Archbishop of
Canterbury at the Windsor Court, but is rebuffed.
(Westminster.)
1130. Pipe Roll notes. The burgesses account for
24 13s. 4d. on a plea of Geoffrey de Clinton ; and
Turgis the Collector for 40 for the current year and
for 5 6s. 8d. for arrears of the previous year as
anxilium of the city. Thurstan the Archbishop
accounts for 10 which the King guaranteed for him
in Normandy, but it is remitted to him ; for 10
marks for his lordship and for 25 marks for his
vassals, which, with the exception of 10 marks of the
latter item, are also remitted to him. Serlo de
Burg owes 26 7s. 3d. as arrears " from the returns
of the Archbishopric of York, whilst it was in his
hand." " Thomas fitz Ulviet of York owes one
fugat," that he might be an Alderman in the Guild of
Merchants at York.
The identification by Mr. G. F. Hill, in N. C. 1897,
293, of a coin of Cartimandua, Queen of the Brigantes,
A.D. 51-71, raises the probability that there was an early
British coinage at York prior to its occupation by the
Romans. Whether the latter people coined here is un-
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 481
certain, but there is ground for an affirmative supposition,
and we have every reason to believe that some of our
earliest Anglo-Saxon sceattce were issued from the York
mint. But the coins of Archbishop Ecgberht, 730-766,
and of his successors not only dispel any further doubts
as to appropriations, but prove that already the regal
privilege of coinage was shared by the ecclesiastical
authority at York. The silver sceatta of Northumbria
was gradually degraded into the copper styca, coined at
York in the ninth century, and that was superseded by the
Danish silver penny and halfpenny in the reign of Alfred,
which half-a-century later gave place to the uniform
Anglo-Saxon coinage. Meanwhile the Archbishops had
ceased to issue a distinct coinage, bearing their own names
and title, but, as at Canterbury, they still held their own
moneyers in the royal mint.
Such were the general conditions of the mint at York
at the time " when King William came into England."
But then a sequence of terrible calamities befell the city.
Not content with having held out until but Chester
remained a Saxon stronghold, the stubborn citizens rose
again against the Norman yoke and were again subdued,
this time by fire and sword ; and yet a third time the
remaining inhabitants fought for their freedom, and,
joining the Northern revolt, slaughtered the King's
garrison. William swore vengeance upon them, and ruth-
lessly devastated the whole of the country between the
Humber and the Tees.
Then it was that the city would be disfranchised of all
its privileges, and from the time when the King wreaked
his final vengeance upon it the royal mint was withdrawn
and so no return is forthcoming from it in the Domesday
Survey. But powerful as King William was, he was not
482 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
powerful enough to curtail a privilege of the Archbishops
of York, and so even under the miserable conditions to
which the city was reduced at the date of the Survey we
find the incidental reference in it to " a certain moneyer."
That he was one of the three moneyers of the Arch-
bishops of York seems to be clear from a writ of quo
tvatranto in the eighth year of Edward I, which admits
that prior to the reign of Henry I, the Archbishops used
three dies at York. Therefore, as, subsequent to the date
of the final calamity, the York coinage, as we have it, will
(after allowing for occasional changes during the currency
of the types) only admit of three moneyers at any time
during the reign of the two Williams, and, as shown by
the writ, these three belonged to the Archbishop, it
follows, as was to be expected, that King William with-
drew the privilege of a royal mint from York.
But the writ implies that in the time of Henry I the
number of the Archbishop's moneyers had been reduced
to two. Judging from our coins this seems to have
occurred during the reign of William II, and was probably
owing to the fact that two moneyers were found to be
ample to supply the wants of a city which, in the King's
demesne alone, had been reduced from 1,418 to 536
inhabited houses.
Upon King Henry's accession, in the year 1100, the
privilege of coinage at York was therefore solely in the
Archbishop by custom, and was limited to that of two
moneyers. Thomas of Bayeux was the then Primate, but
as he died within four months of that event, it is highly
improbable that he ever received his dies for the new
coinage. The actual date of the translation of his
successor Gerard, Bishop of Hereford, to the Archiepisco-
pacy seems to be omitted by the chroniclers, but it was
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 483
certainly prior to September, 1101, when he witnessed the
charters to Bath and Norwich, and was probably Christ-
mas, 1100, when the King kept his Court at Westminster.
Gerard held the Primacy from late in 1100, or early in
1101, to the spring of 1108, and for that period we have
a complete series of types amongst our coins of York
namely, 251 (1100-1102), 254 (1102-1104), 253 (1104-
1106), and 252 (1106-1108).
These types do not disclose the names of more than two
moneyers at a time, and therefore the following extract
from the writ of quo warranto proves that they must have
been issued under the authority of the Archbishop, for if
there were only two moneyers then coining at York, and
Archbishop Gerard sustained his plea concerning his
mo-neyerSy there is no room in the evidence of our coins for
a royal money er.
" Odo, Sheriff of Yorkshire, did hinder Gerard the Arch-
bishop, from holding pleas and giving judgment in his Court
de Monetariis. The Archbishop complained to the King, and
showed his seisin and the right of the Church of St. Peter ;
whereupon the King sent his letters patent to the sheriff, the
effect of which was to will and command him, that Gerard,
Archbishop, should in the lands of his Archbishopric, have
pleas in his Court of his moneyers, of thieves, and of all others,
as Thomas, Archbishop, had in the time of the King's father
and brother. And that he should execute the King's new
statutes of judgments or pleas of thieves and false coiners, and
that he might do this at his own proper instance, in his own
court ; and that neither he nor the Church should lose anything
by the new statutes, but that he might do in his own Courts,
by his own instance, according to the statutes." Euding, II.,
p. 234.
A " Court de monetariis " came as a surprise in these
our closing pages, and at least warranted an enquiry.
This resulted in the discovery that a transcript of King
Henry's original writ is extant and given in the pages of the
484 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Monasticon. From it we find that the name of the sheriff
was Osbert, not Odo, and that the de monetariis referred
to the pleas and not to the Court, which latter was, of
course, the ordinary ecclesiastical Court of the Primacy.
Its attestation clause proves the date to have been 1101,
2, 3, or 4.
Henricus Dei Gratia", Rex Anglorum, Osberto vice-comiti,
et R. filio Geronis salutem. Volo et pracipio, ut Gerardus
Eborum Archiepiscopus, in terris ecclesiarum suarum, et in
omnibus terris Eborum Archiepiscopatus placita sua in curia
sibi habeat ; et de monetariis suis, et de latronibus, et de omni-
bus aliis ; et omnes leges et consuetudines suas, et ecclesiarum
suarum, habeat sicut Thomas Archiepiscopus melius habuit
tempore patris vel fratris mei, et nova statuta mea de judiciis,
sive de placitis latronum et falsorum monetariorum exequantur,
et formant per suam propriam justiciam in curia sua ; nee ipse
aliquod perdat vel ecclesise suse pro novis statutis meis, si ea,
ut dixi, in curia sua faciant per suam propriam justiciam statuta
mea. Teste R. Cestriensi Episcopo, apud Winton in Pascba.
The explanation suggested by this incident is that
Gerard had instituted his two moneyers at York as
of right by ancient custom, and the Sheriff demurred
because he had received no express confirmation charter
from the King of the privilege. Henry therefore com-
promised the position by the direction of his "letters
patent." The reference to the "new statutes" probably
refers to the ordinances of his Coronation Charter of 1100,
and this would further narrow the date of the plea to
Easter, 1101.
Archbishop Gerard was succeeded by Thomas of Beverley,
but in consequence of his refusing to admit the precedence
of the See of Canterbury, his consecration was opposed
by Anselm, and did not take place until June 27th, 1109,
after the death of the latter. He returned to York in
August (Melrose), and was present at the Nottingham
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 485
Council in the autumn of that year (charters to Ely and
Norwich) and type 256 (1108-1110), if a sale catalogue is
reliable, represents his coinage at York at this period. But
now his name disappears from our chronicles and charters,
and it is possible that he accompanied the King to Normandy
and probably journeyed to Rome, for the two types which
represent the remaining three-and-a-half years of his
Primacy are absent. Or it may be that in the absence
of renewed letters patent from the King, the Sheriff
again demurred to the Archbishop's right of coinage, that
the question remained in dispute until his death on
February 24th, 1114, and that consequently the mint
remained in abeyance. This is the more probable, as
we have the evidence of several records, that in later
times the question was still unsolved as to whether
the prescriptive rights of coinage of the Archbishop
of York required confirmation by the King's writ
before they could be exercised by a newly enthroned
Primate.
On the 15th of August, 1114, Henry appointed his
chaplain, Thurstan, to the vacant See, but upon offering
himself for consecration,
" a violent quarrel arose between Ralph, Archbishop of
Canterbury, and Thurstan, Archbishop of York, because the
Archbishop of York refused to consider himself subordinate to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, as his predecessors had been
accustomed to do, and the cause was often discussed before the
King and the Pope, although it was not, as yet, finally
decided." (Westminster.)
" King Henry, finding that Thurstan persisted in his resolu-
tion, openly declared that he should either follow the usages of
his predecessors, both in making the profession and in other
things pertaining by ancient right to the Church of Canterbury,
or lose the Archbishopric of York and consecration altogether.
On hearing this, he (Thurstan) was so moved by the hasty
impulses of his temper that he gave up the Archbishopric."
(Florence.)
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 3 R
486 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
During this period of controversy, therefore, the mint
of York remained of necessity closed, but on April 5th,
1117, Pope Paschal II interposed with a letter of direc-
tion to the King, upon the strength of which, as "William of
Malmesbury tells us in his Gesta Pontificum, Thurstan
was allowed to freely resume his See. Immediately type
264 (1116-1119) appears amongst our York coins, and no
doubt represents a coinage issued by the Archbishop in
evidence that he would admit no encroachment upon the
ancient privileges of his See, either in the form of " letters
patent " from the King, or otherwise, in confirmation of
what he claimed by prescriptive right. The coin itself
is a record of the character of the proud ecclesiastic, for
worked into the design of the obverse die there is a
profusion of annulets representing the symbol, or Annulus
piscatoris, of St. Peter, whose representative he claimed to
be. In this, as will be presently explained, the old Saxon
custom is revived of emphasizing the ecclesiastical origin
of the coin.
Whilst this type was still current, Thurstan obtained
Henry's permission to visit Pope Calixtus II at Rheims,
and in the autumn of 1119 the Pope was persuaded to
consecrate him. This was directly against the King's
instructions to the Archbishop, and in consequence Henry
forbade his return and banished him from the country.
How long the banishment continued is somewhat uncertain,
but, in consequence of the energetic support of the Pope
in favour of Thurstan, the King was compelled to with-
draw the edict. Thurstan's name appears as a witness to
the Plympton charter, which is believed by Mr. Round to
have been given at the Easter Court at "Winchester in
1123, and it was then perhaps that he was first granted
an audience by the King, but the Pipe Roll almost
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 487
implies that he was not reinstated in the temporalities of
his See until a much later date.
From the Easter Court he returned with Henry to
Normandy, for in June or July, 1123, he was with him
at Rouen (Florence). Thence he journeyed to Rome, but
returned to Normandy in 1125, where he witnessed the
charter to Reading, but he again visited Rome. These
proceedings suggest that important negotiations were
passing between the Pope and the King with reference to
his reinstallation at York, and when we read the entry in
the 1129-30 Pipe Roll that Serb de Burg, the King's
sequestrator, was even then accounting for arrears of the
returns of the Archbishopric, and notice the fact that the
mint at York seems to still remain dormant, we may
almost assume that it was not until the year 1126 or 1127
that Thurstan was readmitted into the temporal possession
of his Archiepiscopacy.
At the Christmas Court of 1126-27 we hear the last
of the struggle for precedence, and in the following year
the mint of York is reopened with type 262 (1128-1131).
This is followed by 255 (1131-1135), which completes the
series of Henry I's reign.
Nothing is more characteristic of the ecclesiastical
origin of certain of our ancient money than the use of
the annulet on the coins of York. Under Peterborough
and Reading attention has been called to the occasional use
of this symbol, but it is at York that we find a complete
series of coins so countermarked to distinguish them
from the otherwise similar money issued under tha
King's authority. From the day when the Archbishops
of York, in the time of King Alfred, ceased to issue
money bearing their own names and titles, the annulet
appears upon a certain proportion of the coins of that
488 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
mint ; for we find it as early as during the Danish occu-
pation on the coins of St. Peter and on some of Anlaf
and Eric. It is continued throughout the whole of the
Saxon series, and its purpose was to assist in distin-
guishing the ecclesiastical from the secular coinage, but
and this is significant when King William closed the
royal mint at York, any such distinction being therefore
no longer required, it coincidentally disappears from the
coins until reintroduced by Archbishop Thurstan in 1117
as above explained.
It again appears in Henry's reign upon a coin of type
255 (1131-1135), which supports the theory, now advanced,
that Henry I at this period revived the use of the Arch-
bishop's third die, but placed it in the hands of a royal
moneyer ; thus reinstating a King's moneyer and mint at
York, and therefore necessitating on the Primate's part a
return to the old distinction. That this is not mere
surmise is shown by the following record, also, from the
writ quo warranto
" The Archbishop stated further that he and his predecessors
used to have a third die, which the King then had in this city ;
and prayed that his right therein might be saved to him ; which
plea was allowed." (Drake.)
In the course of time the annulet gave place to other
symbols, such as the Keys of St. Peter, the initials of the
Archbishops, &c., and the Archiepiscopal mint survived
until the Reformation. Its site, or, at least, its final
site, was still known in modern times as The Mint
Yard.
Regal coinage ivt York, after many intermissions, ceased
in the reign of William III.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 489
COINS.
*BRIHT[NOD] ON EOF 251
Sale, April, 1874. This moneyer's name occurs
on Saxon coins of this mint.
*BEIHTNO[D] 251
Marsham Sale, 1888, 3.
.frBRIRNRD ON EFR * HENRI REX 253
H. M. Reynolds, 14J grs. From the Edin-
burgh Sale, 1884.
*RA ..... ON EBO *I\ENRI REX 252
L. A. Lawrence, 20 grs. The variety Fig. E
described on page 56 ; illustrated also in the
Gentleman's Magazine, 1800, page 817, and
(erroneously) Ruding, Sup. II., 2, No. 8.
From the Sharp (Coventry) and Woolston
collections. EBO[RACUM] on this speci-
men is the first revival of the ancient name
of York on any coin since the time of
Athelstan.
*TVR[STAN] ON EVE .frhENRIEVS 255
Lincoln and Son. This moneyer continued to
coin in Stephen's reign.
^TVRSTAN [ON] EVE ^IxENRIEVS 255
S. Smith
: ON : EVERPI fchENRI ... 255
Watford find ; Royal Mint collection ; J. Verity.
Ulf continued to coin here in the reign of
King Stephen, and was, no doubt, the father
of the " Thomas films Ulf" on the Eustace
490 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
type, Hawkins, 631 ; which is fatal to the
claims for the identification of the latter with
Thomas fitz Ulviet, the Pipe Boll " Alder-
man of the Guild of Merchants at York."
: 0]N : EVEEWIE : .frftENE ... 255
Watford find, 2 specimens.
g ON S EVEEWI . . . ENEIEV 255
Lady Buckley, 21 f grs. An annulet in the
centre of the reverse cross, and small annulets
in place of the usual pellets for the colons
of division in the reverse legend. As to this
coin, see before.
KIE : ON [E]VE : *I\ENE ..... 262
F. Spicer.
EE ON [EVJEE *hEN ---- SB 262
Watford find.
ON : EVE . I\ENEI ... 255
L.A. Lawrence, 20 grs., from Viscount Dillon's
collection; Carrutber's Sale, 1857. The
moneyer was probably Ulf.
____ ON EV 255
Watford find, ditto.
: ON : EVEE *I\ ........ E : 264
H. M. Reynolds, 22 grs. The design of the
obverse is decorated with numerous minute
annulets. As to this coin, see before.
Webb Sale, 1884, 2 4s. 254
Kirby Sale, 1888 256
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGX OF HENRY I. 491
Coma.
Unappropriated or Additional.
^.AILEED ...... ......... 255
Watford find. Possibly Alfred of London who
coined for Stephen.
*BVREhART: ...... Ix . . . . { S.' IV*
Described and illustrated, page 82. The name
is, probably, for Burchart, from which we
have Barchard, and suggests an East Anglian
mint.
4,0- IiEIQVN : ON B , . 267
Bari find. As the reading was originally taken
from a drawing of the coin it is, possibly,
mistaken.
*RAVEN6IAR.. .. *IiENRIEVS : 255
Watford find.
*STI6AD: ...... . . . . EIEVS E 262
Watford find,
CANTERBURY.
EEX 257
*PVLFRIE
L. A. Lawrence. This coin further supports
the suggestion on page 132 that the Abbot
of St. Augustine's maintained his right to a
moneyer at Canterbury.
*PVLSI ON ENTLEI *hENEI E 254
W. T. Ready.
492 NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
NOTES.
Page 2, line 14, Read " more than a life interest."
71, ,, 2, ,, " sceptre fleury, or surmounted."
,, 130, ,, 33, " (Eynsford) pays 9s."
138, 3, " Mr. F. Jenkinson."
168, 26, " The burgs [of the county] pay."
202, 24, "255."
220, 43, " there were three moneyers."
CUT HALFPENNIES AND THE " SNICKED " COINS.
On pages 54 and 55 the proclamation of 1108 prohibiting the
cut halfpennies, and the record in Malmesbury that the King
ordered all the money to be " snicked " are connected as serving
some common purpose, in abolishing the cut halfpenny, and
purifying the coinage. Again, on page 78, it is pointed out
that, so long as all the money was so snicked, the cut halfpenny
does not appear, and, on page 9, that the severance of the half-
penny invariably followed the line of the reverse cross. It
will be noticed from the coins, or from the illustrations upon
which the incision can be traced, that it is almost invariably
oblique, and that it is never in line with an arm of the reverse
cross. The sffeet of this was, of course, that if a snicked
penny was severed into two halfpennies, one of them would be
so weakened by the incision, as to be useless for circulation, and
so one good halfpenny only would be the result of an experi-
ment, not likely to be repeated when coined money was always
at a premium.
THE RHUDDLAN MINT OF WILLIAM I.
On page 147 the expression in Domesday, medietatem monetce,
is rendered " a half share in the mint," and Ruding, in vol. ii.,
page 240, translates it as a moiety of the mint. But it, more
probably, refers to the middle penny of the three into which,
for purposes of the Exchequer, similar revenue was then figura-
tively divided, and so would be the tertim denarius.
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 493
TABLE OF THE MINTS AND THEIR TYPES.'
Order of Types
Hawkins' Types
I.
251
II.
254
III.
253
IV.
252
V.
256
VI
257
VII
267
VIII
266.
IX
264
X.
263
XI.
rv.
XII
258
XIII
265
xrv.
262
XV.
255
Barnstaple . .
Bath ....
X
Bedford . . .
X
X
X
Bristol . . .
X
X
X
Canterbury .
Carlisle . .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chester . . .
X
X
X
Chichester . .
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
X
Colchester . .
X
Dorchester . .
X
X
Dover .
X
X
X
Durham
Exeter . . .
X
X
X
X
Gloucester .
Obv.
Rev-
X
J(
X
Hastings . .
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hereford .
-
x
x
Huntington
X
x
Ipswich . . .
X
X
X
X
x
x
Leicester
X
X
X
x
Lewes . . .
X
Lincoln . . .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
London .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Northampton .
X
X
X
Norwich
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nottingham
X
X
X
X
Oxford . . .
X
X
Peterborough i
(Stamford) j
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reading. . )
(London) . j
X
Rochester .
X
St. Edmunds-
bury . . .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Salisbury .
Sandwich .
X
X
X
X
X
Southampton .
X
X
X
Southwark . .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sudbury . .
X
X
X
X
Tamworth .
X
X
X
Thetford . .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wallingford .
X
X
X
X
Wareham .
X
X
X
X
X
Warwick .
X
X
Wilton . . .
X
X
X
Winchester
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Worcester . .
X
X
X
York. . . .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Unappropriated
X
Rev.
Obv.
X
X
1 As anticipated on p. 41, the lists of mints under the various types, pp. 4296,
have been subjected to some addition arid alteration.
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES. 3 S
494
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
INDEX TO THE MONEYERS OF HENRY I.
IN most of the instances one form only of the name is given,
as the numerous variations will be found under the references.
It by no means follows that all the types opposite to the names
were issued by the same moneyer, as no distinction is here
drawn between two persons of the same name and mint. For
instance, there was certainly two money ers at Winchester,
during this reign, named "WTMVND.
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
ABEEEAND .
Thetford . .
252 ?, 266
426
AEVS . . .
Thetford . .
252
426
ADALBOT . .
St. Edmunds-
252
390
bury
2ED6AE . . 1
2ET6AE . . j
f Eeading . .
{ (London)
255
373-77
AEDPAED . .
Colchester
265
160, 166
JE6ELPAED .
Wilton . . .
253
452
^EGLNOD . .
Oxford . . .
251
358
2ELDEED . .
Tamworth ? .
254
420
j\ZE]LFPINE .
Exeter . . .
254, 252
195
JELSIE . . .
Colchester
265
166
2ELSTAN . .
Eochester . .
251
382-84
yELWI . . .
Lincoln
255
268-69
AGhEMVND .
Canterbury .
258, 255
134-35
AHGEMVND .
Lincoln . .
251
269
AILMAE . .
Chester . .
255
149
AILEED
255
491
AILWA[ED] .
Bristol . . .
262
126
AILWAED . .
Winchester .
255
464
AILPI . . .
Norwich .
255
334
AILPINE . .
Winchester .
263, 262
457, 464-65
AINVLF . .
Winchester .
252, 265?,
457-58, 465
255?
ALDENA
Norwich . .
252
334
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 495
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
ALFEIEVS . .
Winchester .
262, 255
463-66
ALFPINE . .
Gloucester
Obv.263Bev.
200-2
IV., 262, 255
1
London . .
251, 254, 253,
\
252, 267, 266,
ALFPINE . <
263, 258, 265,
200-2,
255
287-91
\
Southwark
256, 262
London . .
251, 254, 252,
AL6AE . .
257, 267, IV.,
283-84,
265, 262
291-93
Southwark
258, 262
ALEA[ND?] .
Thetford . .
262
427
AL[PI]NE . .
Nottingham .
IV., 265
350
ALPOLD . ,
Winchester .
255
466
AEEIL . . )
ARNEIL . j
Lincoln . .
J251, 252,
\ 263, 255
261, 269-70
AEEIL . .
Peterborough
(Stamford) .
| 254, 253
369
ASEIxETIE
Thetford . .
251, IV., 265
427
ASLADE . .
Lincoln . .
255
270
BALDEP1NE .
London . .
255
293
BALDEPIN
Eeading . .
(London) . .
J 255
293, 376-78
BALDPINE .
Norwich . .
255
334
BAND . . )
BEAND . . )
Thetford . .
254
427-28
BAELVIT . .
Hastings . .
254
209
BLAEAMAN .
London . .
252, 256, IV.,
293-94, 301,
267?, 258, 262
309
BONIFAEE .
Hastings . .
IV.
206, 208-9
BRAND . . .
Chichester
267, 266, IV.
153, 156-58
BEAND . . .
Exeter . . .
262
195
BEANT . . .
London . .
252
295
BEIiIEDPI .
Exeter . . .
255
195
BEHTME . .
Lewes . . .
251
257
BEHTOD . .
Thetford . .
254
428
BEIEhMAE .
London . .
255
295, 419-20
B[EIEI\]MAEE
BEIHTNO[D]
BEIHTIE . .
Tamworth
York . . .
Wallingford .
262
251
251
419-20
489
435-36
BEIfxTPIN . .
London . .
251
295
496
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
BEIENED . .
York . . .
253
489
BEVMAN . .
Lincoln
251
270
BEVNLC . .
London . .
251, 252
295
BEVNI6 . .
Wilton . . .
267
452
BEVNMAN .
Lincoln . .
255
270
BVEEfiAET
Obv. 258
82, 491
Rev. IV.
EINEI ? . . .
Hereford . .
255
217
EOE ....
Norwich . .
255
334-35
DEEEMAN .
London . .
255
281-82,296-97
DEEIEVS, see
EDEIEVS.
DEELI6 . .
Huntingdon .
262
227
DEELINE . .
Wareham . .
267, 266
441-42, 458
DOET? . . .
Southampton
252
409
DEMAN . .
Hastings .
251
209
DVNINE . .
Hastings . .
252, 258
209-10
DVEANT . .
Carlisle . .
262
142
ED6AE . . .
Ipswich . .
253
237
EDMVND . .
Leicester . .
264
250
EDMVND . .
Lincoln . .
255
270
EDEIEVS . .
Bedford . .
265
116, 126, 216
EDEIEVS . .
Bristol . . .
265
116, 126, 216
EDEIEVS . .
Hereford . .
262
126, 216-18
EDSTAN . )
ETSTAN . j
Norwich . .
(253, 257,
267, IV.,
327, 331-32,
335-36, 378
( 258, 255
EDPINE . .
Canterbury .
251, 265
134-35
EDPINE . .
Hereford . .
255
218
EDPINE . .
London . .
258
297
EDPINE . .
Norwich . .
255
335
ELFPINE, see
ALFPINE.
EN6ELEAM .
Thetford . .
264
428
EN6ELEAM .
Winchester .
IV., 265, 262
457, 462,
466-67
EEEBALD . .
Carlisle . .
255
29, 142-43
ESTALZEB . .
London . .
251
297
ESTMVND . .
London . .
255
298
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY I. 497
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
FEELING
Norwich . .
254
337
FVIL6EED .
Leicester . .
252
250-51
6EFFEEI . .
Northampton
262
223-24
6EEAVD . .
Bristol . . .
262
126, 268
6EEMAN . .
Ipswich . .
262
237
6ILEBEED .
London . .
255
298-99
6ILEBEET .
St. Edmunds-
IV., 255
890-91
bury
6ILLEMOE .
Chester . .
262
150
60DEIE . .
Hastings . .
253
210
60DEIEVS .
Lincoln
254, 264, 258,
268, 270-71
262, 255
60DEIEVS
London . .
Southwark .
255
262
299
299
60DEIE .
Peterborough
(Stamford) .
1 253, 264
370
60DEIE . .
St. Edmunds-
265, 262
390-92
bury
60DEIE . .
Salisbury , .
251
401
60DEIE . .
Worcester
265
478
60DPINE . .
Chichester
264
158
60DPINE .
London . .
Southwark .
251, 262, 255
252
281-83, 300
300
6ODPINE . .
Thetford . .
254, 267, 262
428
60DP1NE . .
Wallingtord .
267
435-36
60DPINE . .
Warwick . .
265
446-47
60DPINE . 1
60TPINE . )
Winchester .
(251, 253,
257, 267,
( 266, 255
457-58,467-68
GOLDPINE .
Dover . . .
251
176
60[LT]SE . .
6EE60EI . .
Sandwich . .
Canterbury .
262
264
404-5
135
6EIM . . .
Canterbury .
262
136
I\AMVND . .
London . .
255
300
HEIEMAN .
Peterborough
(Stamford) .
| 251
370
I\EEIEVS, see
EDEIEVS.
T\EETI\I6 . .
Bristol . . .
IV., 262, 255
127
h[I]PI6. . .
Winchester .
255
458, 468
498
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
hIRMOR .
HOPORD . .
Peterborough
(Stamford) .
Norwich . .
}253, 265?,
J 262
251, 254, 253
370-71
337
IE, see IE.
LEFRED . }
LIFRED . j
London . .
255
303
LEFRIE . .
Lincoln . .
255
271
LEFPARD . I
LIFPORD . )
Southwark
251, 257
302-3
LEFPINE . )
LIFPINE . j
LEFPINE . .
j London . .
( Southwark .
Tamworth
255
251, 254,256,
257, 266, 264,
IV., 258, 262
265
302, 419
288, 301-2
420
LEFPINE . .
LEVSI . .
LEOPINE . )
LVFPINE . j
Winchester .
Peterborough
(Stamford) .
Ipswich . .
265, 262
255
251, 253
467-68
370
237
LIFNOD . .
Thetford . .
253
429
MORVS . .
Peterborough
(Stamford) .
I 264
370
NE[EOLL?] .
NVI\ERD . .
Thetford . .
Lincoln . .
267
257, 258
429
271-72
ODDE . . .
ODE ....
St. Edmunds-
bury
Thetford . .
262
255
392, 429
429
ONTETF? . .
ORD6ARVS .
London . .
London . .
267
251, 265, 262,
255
303, 429
217, 304-5
ORIM, see GRIM
ORDPI . . .
Durham . .
262
186
OSBERN . .
Bath . . .
262
112
OSBERN . .
Dorchester
262
171
OSBERN . .
OSBERN . .
Ipswich . .
London . .
255
255
237-38
305
OSBERN . .
Norwich . .
252
388
OSBERN . .
Salisbury . .
254, 253
401-2
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HEXRY I.
499
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
OSBEEN . .
Sudbury . .
265, 262
414
OSBERTVS .
Lincoln . .
255
268, 272
OSBE . . .
Bristol . . .
253
127
OSM^EB . . .
Warwick .
253
446-7
OTEE . . .
Barnstaple
265
107
OTEE . . .
Norwich . .
255
338
OSVLF . . }
OSWLF . )
Wallingford .
264, 265
436-7
OSPOLDVS .
Ipswich . .
262
238
PAIEN . . .
Northampton
255
324
PAIEN . . .
Southampton
265
323, 409
PEEIN . . .
Canterbury .
253
136
EAVLEVS . ^
EAPVLF .
EABLVF . '
London . .
(253, 267,
1264, 265,
305-6, 356-57,
465
EADVLVS ?
( 262
EAPVLF .
EAWLF . .
Oxford . . .
255
356-59, 306
EAVEN6IAE .
255
491
EA
York . . .
252
56, 489
EIEAED . .
Lincoln . .
251
272
EIEAED . .
Wilton . . .
262
451-52
EIEEAED . .
Bristol . . .
255
127
EOBERD . .
London . .
255
307
EODBEET . .
Canterbury .
255
136
KODBEET . .
Gloucester
255
202
EODLAND . .
Ipswich . .
265, 262
238
E06IEE . .
London . .
255
307
SAE6IEM . .
Colchester
253
166
SA6EIM . .
Oxford . . .
255
359
SAIET . . {
SAIED . . j
Winchester .
(252, 266,
J 263, 265,
( 262, 255
457-58, 462,
464, 468-70
SAPINE . .
Gloucester
255
203
SEFPINE . .
Huntingdon .
254
227
SENPI . . .
Bristol . . .
254
127
S[E~|ELIE . .
Southampton
252
409
SEPINE. see
LEFPINE.
500
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
SIxITRIE . .
Norwich .
255
338
SIBERN . . .
Salisbury . .
262
402
SIER. . . I
SIRET ? . . j
Norwich . .
253, IV.
338
SIERLI . . .
Wilton . . .
253
452
S252, 267,
307-8
SIGARVS . J
SIGNER . . f
London . .
266, 264,
263, IV.,
265, 262
SIPARD . . .
Winchester .
255
470
SIOERNE . .
Canterbury .
251
137
SM2ERINE
London . .
251, 257, 255
294, 309
SPIRLIN6 . .
London . .
251, 252, IV.,
283-84,309-10
265
STANEIxE . .
Thetford . .
256, 255
429
STIEFNES . .
Northampton
265,262,255?
325
[STIE]FNE . .
Winchester .
255
470
fcTIGAD . . .
262
491
SVNSMAN . .
Norwich . .
255
339
SPEINE . . .
Nottingham .
262
342, 346,
349-50
SPERftAVOE .
Wareham . .
251,0&v.267--
441-42
Bev. 266, IV.
SPET. . . .
Lincoln . .
265, 262
268, 272
SWETMAN . .
Oxford ? . .
255
318, 353-54,
359
SPOTR . . )
j London . .
257, 264
310
SNOTR . . j
{ Southwark .
251
DEODRIE . )
DVRED . .
DORED . . )
London . .
(254?, 252,
( 267, 263
281, 291, 311
ThVRBVRN .
Chester . .
255
150
TIiVR
Gloucester
255
203
TOE ....
Lincoln . .
IV.
268, 272
TOE, seeEOE.
TO VI. . . .
London
255
311
TO VI ....
Winchester .
255
470
TVREML . .
Bristol . . .
255
128, 203
TVRRET . .
Chester . .
262
150
TVRSTAN . .
York . . .
255
489
VLF ....
Southampton
IV.
410
A NUMISMATIC HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY 1. 501
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
VLF ....
York . . .
255
489-90
VLFEhlTEL .
Norwich . .
265
327, 331, 339
VLFRAVEN .
London . .
255
312
VLF PINE . .
Winchester .
267
410, 458, 470
VLP see
PVLFPARD.
[P]^ERIE . .
Hereford . .
255
218
WARM ....
Leicester . .
262
251
WARN?. . .
Winchester .
255
470
WIBERD . .
Gloucester
255
203
PILhEMAR .
Norwich . .
252
339
WILLELMVS .
Canterbury .
255
137
PILLELMVS .
London . .
255
312, 357
PIMVND / .
Winchester .
251, 256,267,
457-59, 466,
262, 255
471
PINEDAI . .
Canterbury .
254, 267, IV.,
112, 137-38
262, 255
PINNRIED .
Chester or
Lewes
J 251
151, 257
PINTERLEDE
Bath ...
265
112
PVLGAR . \
PVLF6AR . )
London . .
257, 267,
IV., 265,
262
315
PVLFRIE . .
Canterbury .
251, 257
138, 491-92
PVLFRIE . |
Norwich, or
Nottingham
1 257
345, 350-51
PVLFRIE . .
Sudbury . .
253, 267
413-15
PVLFRIE . .
Worcester . .
IV., 262
478
PVLFPARD )
PVLFPORD
London . .
251, IV., 262
312-13
PVLEPORD )
PVLFPART .
St. Edinunds-
263
392
bury
PVLFPINE .
Canterbury .
266, 255
138, 382
PVLFPINE .
Leicester . .
254
251
PVLFPINE .
London . .
Obv.257Hfv.
60, 290, 314
267, 267, 263,
255
PVLFPINE .
Rochester . .
251
382, 384
PVLFPI . .
Colchester
262
167
PVL[N]OD .
PVLSI . . .
Northampton
Canterbury .
255
254, 253
325
139, 491
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES.
3T
502
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE.
Moneyer.
Mint.
Types.
Pages.
Imperfect.
. ANDVS . .
Winchester .
265
471
. . . AWI . .
Exeter . . .
255
196
AR .
St. Edmuncls-
262
392
bury
. . ELIiI . .
Exeter . . .
255
196
. . . ER . . .
York . . .
262
490
IEEDRR1HL,
see DEODRIE
RA . .
Chester . .
263
151
RIE . .
Chester . .
262
151
. . . RIE . .
York . . .
262
490
INDEX.
A.
Abern, Ingleram de, 428
Abetot, Ursu a', 212, 215, 416-17,
472, 475-6
Abingdon, 101, 148, 177, 352
Adeliza, Queen to Henry 1, 156,
194, 329-30, 333
Albini, Wm. de, 47, 156, 233
Alcester Abbey, 249
Alexander, King of Scotland, 226,
320
Algod, Ralph fitz, 305
AmundevilJe, John de, 178
Andrew, W. J., coins of, 137, 257,
270, 292-93, 297, 305, 447
Anjou, Geoffrey of, 194
Annulets on coirs, 28, 156, 158,
364, 376-78, 467. 486-88, 491
Armour on coins, 89
Arundel, 47, 152-53, 156, 252
Athelstan, King, Law of, 18, 48,
130, 153, 161, 168, 188, 206, 254,
380, 406, 438. 455
ATLE, supposed mint, explained,
102
Aurifabri or Cuneators, 25, 26, 38,
44, 46-47, 74, 86
Otto family, 25, 26, 27,
38- H, 44, 46-47, 71,
74, 87, 97, 99, 155,
160, 275, 3S9, 410
,, Leostan, 74, 87, 275
Wyzo fitz, 87,
275
Eichard, 127
Ewart, 280
Auxilium, 160, 164-65, 168, 198,
222, 229, 275, 320,
327-28, 353, 416, 421,
431, 438
Avxilium, connected with the mints,
165, 171, 330-31, 365,
357, 418-19, 423-25,
433-34, 454
B.
Bainard, Geoffrey, 205
Baldric, Hugh titz, 341
Baldwin, Sheriff of Devon, 103
,, Wm. fitz, 140
Banes, A. A., coins of, 272, 309,
312, 377, 391
Barnstaple, 122, 162, 165, 170
,, history and coins of,
102-07
Barton, 119
Basset, Kalph, 342, 450, 456
Richard, 361, 422, 428
Bath, 119, 381
,, history and coins of, 107-
13
Records of coinage at, 109-
10
,, Adelarus of, 109
,, John, Bishop of, 131
lialau/iii.i, 443
Battle, wager of, 205, 207
Beauchamp family, 113-17, 473
Beaumont, Hugh, 116
Becket, Gilbert, 282, 298
Bedford, 126
history and coina of,
113-17
Bedwin, mint of, 407
Beleme, see Shrewsbury, Earl of
Berkeley, 120, 477
Binge, F. E., coin of, 137
Bigod. Roger, 163, 228, 326-27,
389, 397, 421
William, 229, 233-35, 421
Hugh, 229, 233-37
504
INDEX.
BISES, supposed mint, explained,
49, 117-18, 127
Bishop's Tawtoii, 103
Bliss, T., coins of, 269, 305-06, 312,
337, 339
Boat-carles, 173, 256
Bocland, Hugh de, 47
Bodleian Library, 38, 353
,, ,, coins in the, 117,
269, 287, 291-92, 306, 309, 314,
370, 436-37
Bohun, Humphrey de, 395, 400-01
Boldon-Book, The, 180, 182
Boulogne, Eustace, Earl of, 173,
175
Bourg-Theroude, battle of, 88, 145
Boyd, W. C., 300
,, coins of, 136, 300,
314, 471
Brandon, flint workers of, 276
Hraose, Wm. de, 106
Bremule, battle of, 205, 208, 394,
399
Breteuil, Wm. de, 460
Bridgnorth, 152, 164, 215
Bridport, mint of, 407
Bristol, history and coins of, 24,
110, 118-28, 199-201, 476
British Museum, 38, 47, 88, 97,
146-47
,, ,, coins in the, 9,
64, 72, 117, 127, 135, 138-39,
149-50, 158, 166, 172, 176, 186,
195-96, 202-03, 209-10, 218,
238, 250, 257, 270-71, 288-91,
293-98, 301-15, 324-26, 334-36,
33S, 350, 358-59, 369-70, 384,
402, 409, 415, 427-29, 436-37,
442, 452, 466, 469-71, 478
Brittany, Alan, Earl of, 229, 231-33
Bruun, L. E., coin of, 294
Buc kley, Lady, coin of, 490
Burg, Strlode, 480, 487
Burstal, E. K., coins of, 314, 415
Bury St. Edmunds, seeSt.Ednjunds-
bury
Buxton, 107
C.
Cambridge, 412
,, Museums, coins in the,
38, 291, 307, 325, 339, 426, 468
Canterbury, 92, 1/8, 402-04
,, history and coins of,
17, 102, 128-o9,382-
83, 491-92
Canterbury,Archbishopsof,Anselm,
129, 131-33, 212,
387-88; Ralph, 130-
33, 413 ; Stigand,
128; William, 130,
133-34, 372, 386,
406
,, records of moneyers of,
266, 382-83
Carlisle, 148, 320-21
,, history and coins of, 29,
139-43, 185, 322
,, records of money ers of,
29, 142
,, silver mines of, 29, 31,
140-41, 384
Carlyon-Britton, P. W. P., coijis
of, 227, 237, 271-72, 291, 293,
295, 297, 300, 305, 310, 315, 324,
338, 436, 442, 465-66, 471
Charters, 101, et alibi
Chatterton, 125, 447
ChE, following moneyer's name,
338
Chess-men, ancient, 88
Chester, 95
,, exchequer of, 145
,, sword of, 14-6-47
,, history and coins of, 143-
51, 191, 481
,, records of coinage at, 144,
H7
earldom of, 321, 417
,, Earls i.f, Gherbod, 144,
146; Hugh, 144,146-47,
152, 190, 207, 385 ;
Ranulf de Meschines,
140, 145-46, 148-49,
322; Ranulf deGernons,
145-46, 149, 398; Rich-
aid, 144-45, 147-148,
234-35, 247 ; Lucia,
Countess of, 145-46
Chichester, 122, 153, 417
,, history and coins of,
122, 151-58, 191
,, records of moneyers of ,
153, 156
Bishops of, Pelochin,
153 ; Ralph, 152-53,
156-57 :Sigfred, 153,
372 ; Stigand, 152
,, Earldom of, 152, 15&
Cbriskhurch, 191
Cinque Ports, the, 104, 173
Cirepcester, 119
Clare, Hamo de St., 160
INDEX.
505
Clarendon, 406, 408
Clinton, Geoffrey de, 221-22, 227,
422, 480
Coinage, records of the, 12, 15, 23,
29, 55, 80, 85, 99, et alibi. In
Huvedeti, 1, 20-21, 232. In the
Dialogue of the Exchequer, 8,
9, 30, 36, 87, 141
Colcnester, 158, 170-71, 233, 246,
279, 381, 418. 425
,, history and coins of,
159-67
,, records of coinage at,
160-61
,, records of money ers of,
161, 166-67
Coleshelle, 415
Colingham, ;i63
Comines, Robert de, 177, 182
Cony ers, Roger de, 181
Corfield, E. T., coins of, 309. 337
Coutances, Geoffrey, Bishop of,
103-05, 119,121
Coventry, 101
Crediton, 103
Creeke, Major A. B., coin of, 9
Cricklade. mint of, 407
Crispin, Mil , 430-31, 433-34
Crmnpton -Roberts, C. M., coins
<.f, 295, 339
Cross, initial, omitted on obverse of
type 258, 77
,, and pile, 9
Crown, Norman custom of succes-
sion to, 115
Cumberland, moneyers in, 141
Cuneator, see Aurifabri
Cuts in the edge of coins, 55-56,
69, 492
D.
David, King of Scotland, see North-
ampton, Earl of
Deakin, G., coins of, 293, 298, 313
Dean, Forest of, 197
Deorham, battle of, 108
Derby, 219, 239
D^rewater, Wm. fitz, 424
Devizes, 396
Dies, moneyers' fees for, 12, 13,
473, et alibi
,, engraved by the Cuneator,
26-28
how prepared, 28, 136, 217,
335, 338
Dispensator, Kobert, 416
Domesday, why certain mints
omittedfrom,21-22,
146-47, 153, 169,
188, 223, 365, 381,
et alibi
,, customs of mints, 12
212, et alibi
see history of the
various mints
Dorchester, 107, 223, 255, 328, 418,
425
,, history and coins of,
167-72, 439
records of coinage at,
168-69
Douglas, Capt. K. J. H.. 270
,, coins of, 158, 270, 287,
293, 428, 469
Dover, 206, 256, 403-04
history and coins of, 94,
172-76
records of moneyers at, 176
Draitone, 415
Duffield, 342, 346
JJukiudeld-Astley, Rev. H. J.,
420-21
Dunwich, its claims a* a mint, 181
Durban^ history and coins of, 140,
176-86
,, dies of, 185
, , records of coinage at, 180,
182
,, Bishopsof, Egelwine,177,
182; Walcher, 177,182;
William, 131, 177-78;
Ranulf, 14, 178, 183,
256, 274 ; Geoffrey, 109,
179, 185 ; Hugh de
Pudsey, 181
E.
Ecclesiastical coinage, 18, 28-29,
131, 212, 214, 362-69, 371-76,
481-89, et alibi
Edgr the Atheling, 220
Edgar, King of Scotland, 221, 225
Edith, Queen to the Confessor, 228
Edric, the Wild, 211
Edward the Confessor, his portrait
on coins,
88
,, ,, coinage of,
13, 23, 2o, 32, 88, et alibi
Edward I. changes the feudal
character of the coinage, 1U-.20
Edwin and Morcar, Earls, 220
506
INDEX.
Ely. 101, 328
,, Bishop of, 386
E.scollaud, Geoffrey, 178
Ethelred II , laws of, concerning
coinage at London, 277-79
Eu, Robert d', 204-07
William fitz, 206
William d', 205-07
Henry d', 205-08
Eudo, Dapifer, 52, 160-64, 233, 246
EVSTAEIVS, coin of, 89
Ev.ms, Sir John, 15, 56, 59, 62,
301, 303, 379,
470
,, ,, coinsof, 64, 195,
272, 291, 297, 302-03, 324, 339,
428-29, 44'J, 467, 469-71
Exchequer, audit of the, 7-9, 121,
179
,, Dialogue of the, 7, et
alibi
its tests of the money, 8
year, the, 101,229,260
Exeter, 169
See of, 187
, , history and coins of, 186-96
William, Bishop of, 193
Eyam. 341
Eynsford, William de, 130
Farthings, 8-12, 55
Fashions in design of coins, 88
Finds of Henry I's coins, 32-35
,, ,, deduc-
tions from, 14-15, 32-35. 70
Find* of Henry Is coin* at
Ashby Wolds, 33, 97-98
Bari, Italy, 33, 36, 59, 61-62, et
alibi
Battle, 33, 36. 73, 77, 79, 97, 98
Bermondsey, 33, 36, 43, 45
Dartford, 33, 36, 97, 98
Linton, 33, 36, 97, 98
Milford Hiven, 33, 36, 84, 91,
94, 217
Nottingham, 33, 36, 43, 73, 97,
98, 347-49, 435
Shillington, 33, 36, 53-54
Wallop, 33, 59, 77, 79, 97, 98
Watford, 33-34, 36, 91, 98, 100,
et alibi
Finds of single coins of Henry I
at
Bedford, 289
Ixworth, 269
Finds of single coins of Henry I
at
Reading Abbey, 67, 469
St. Albans. 292
St. Edmundsbury, 392
St. John's, 401
Whepstead. 392
in Somersetshire, 237
in th Thames, 302
Finds of coins of other reigns at
Beaworth, 36, 44, 179
Dimchurch, 36
London, City of. 36
Tamworth, 36, 435
York, 36
Flambard, see Durham, Bishops of
Flemings, the, 32
Fontibus. Fulco de, 380
Forgeries, modern, 84, 89 r 326,
437
G.
Gates, city, mints in the, 278-79,
346, 359, 363, 419
Gateshead, 177
Geoffrey, the Chancellor, 109, 213,
216. flee Durham, Bishops of
Glastonbury, Abbots of, 92, 153, 157
Gloucester, 24, 116, 119-20, 224,
477
,, history and coins of,
24, 110, 124-25, 196-
203
,, records of coinage at,
197-98
,, BrihtricEaldormanof,
121, 196
Milo fi-z Walter,
Constable of, 126,
197, 217, 231
Robert, Earl of, 120-
25, 130, 145, 174,
179, 194, 199-201,
235, 348-49, 394,
436, 477
Walter de, 197
Godwin. Earl, 173, 274
Gould, I. C., 159, 239, 260
Grantham, 148
Grantmesnil, Hugh de, 240, 397
Ivo de, 240, 344
Grueber, H. A., 257, 350
,, on status of moneyers,
265
,, on early coinage at Ro-
chester, 380
INDEX.
507
Guader, see Norfolk, Earl of
Guildford, mint of, 294, 3l>9
Guilds, civic, 31, 173, 259, 275,
454, 480, 490
Gunthorpe, 323
Gurth, Earl, 228, 230
H.
H, the old form of, disappears from
coins in 1106, 50, 84, 409
HA.DEW, supposed mint, ex-
plained, 203
Hair, long, on coins, 88
Halfpenny, the, 8-12, 55, 78-79,
84-86, 91
records of the, 8-12,
15, 55, 492
,, pennies incised to pre-
vent the making of
the cut, 492
,, issued from the mints,
10-11
,, a means of fraud, 10-
11
, , abolished by Edward I ,
12
Hall, J., coin of, 304
Hamon, Robert fitz, 119-25, 163,
197 200, 207
the dapifer, 164, 414
Hastings, 173-74, 415-416
,, history and coins of, 94,
204-10
,, records of moneyers at,
206, 208-09
Hawkins' silver coins of England,
numbers to plates here
adopted for Henry's
types 4 1
,, does not attempt any
chronological order in
Henry's types, 3, 41
Hedenham, 380
Henderson, J. S., coins of, 237,
302, 309, 436, 469
Henry I instituted payments in
coin, 31
,, his treasury, 99, 454, 460
,, estimated number of his
coins, 34, 96, 99. See
under the various types
Henry II restricts changes in type,
20, 37
his coinage, 15, 32, 98
Herbert, the Chamberlain, 456
Hereford, 1'26, 219, 417
Hereford, history and coins of, 126,
210-18, 331
,, records of coinage at,
212-14
,, records of moneyers at,
213, 216-17
Earls of, William, 190,
211-14
Roger, 211-15. Milo,
see Gloucester
Bishops of, 212, 213,
216
Hereward, 177, 182, 337, 360
Heywood, N., 127
,, corns of, 290, 377
Hill, G. F., 98, 446, 480
Hodges, G., coin of, 294
Hocking, W. J., 137, 466
Hoctou, Pain de, 324, 394. 400
Housecarles, the Saxon, 168, 438
Howard, origin of family of, 337
Hugh, Pincerna, 248
Hunterian Museum, the, 38
,, ,, coins in, 66,
72, 75, 82, 90, 127, 139, 167, 202,
227, 251, 288, 295, 301-02, 304,
307, 310-11, 338, 369, 401, 420,
429, 437, 464, 467
Huntingdon, 255, 328. See North-
ampton
,, history and coins of,
219-27
,, records of coinage at,
220, 222
Earls of, Hf-nry, 227.
See under North-
ampton
Hythe, 173
I.
Ilkley, 107
Inner circle on obverse of coins, 74
Ipswich, 397
history and coins of, 228-
38
, , records of coinage at, 229-
30
J.
Jenkinson, F., 138, 307, 339,
426
John, King, coinage of, 15
K.
Kent, Earl of. See Odo
508
INDEX.
L.
Lacy, Walter de, 211
Lage-men, 258, 261-63, 422
Lasney, Hugh, 393, 396
Lawrence, F. G., coins of, 75, 307,
314
Lawrence, L. A., 38
,, on the Barn-
staple mint,
103, 369
,, on migration of
moneyers, 200
,, on modern for-
geries, 75,307,
314, 437
,, coins of, 56, 59,
64, 82, 135, 138, 143, 196, 250-61,
270, 287-89, 291-94, 296-97, 301,
308-09, 311, 336-37, 339, 359,
377, 384, 391, 414, 465, 489-90
Legal tender, the Norman, 13, 20,
35, 36, 81, 86
Legends often blundered on the
first type of a new king or cunea-
tor, 44, 74, 97
Leicester, 397
history and coins of, 150,
239-51
,, records of coinage at,
240
records of moneyers at,
250
Earls of, Robert Mellent,
47, 191, 207, 240-46,
444. Robert II, 242-
50, 399
Letters, evolution of, on Henry's
money, 39-99
,, on the state sword of
Chester, 147
Lewes, 122, 404
,, history and coins of, 94,
122, 147, 151, 251-57
,, records of coinage at, 252,
254
Lichfield, 101
Lincoln, 7, 145, 239, 250, 321, 408,
417
name of, 69, 79. " NI-
COLE" explained, 267-
68
,, history and coins of, 230,
257-73, 366, 422
,, records of coinage at, 258
,, records of moneyers at,
264-65, 268-69
Lincoln, bishops of, 220, 241, 244-
45. Alexander, 134,259,
316. Remigius, 258.
Robert, 258-59, 316
,, Earl of, see Roumare
battle of, 349
Fosse Dyke at, 259
Lincoln and Son, coins of, 138, 202,
272, 290, 293, 296, 299, 302, 305,
307, 311, 335, 370, 377, 426, 452,
466, 468-69, 489
London, 105, 111, 120, 168, 187,
261..318, 321
,, history and coins of, 273-
316, 384, 407, 429
,, records of coinage at, 28,
276-79, 284
,, records of moneyers at,
266, 275, 280-81, 283
Institutes of Ethelred II
concerning coinage at,
277-79
Henry's charter to, 284-
87, 375
,, city gates, coinage at the,
277-79
Tower of, the, 178, 274,
275
bridge of, the, 275
,, St. Bartholomew's at, 275
,, Holy Trinity Priory at,
194
St. Paul's at, 276
Bishops of, Gilbert. 275.
Maurice, 163. Richard,
274, 275
,, Bishops of, had the privi-
lege of a moneyer at
Colchester, 161
, , dies for the general money
supplied from, 25, 27,
28, 473 et alibi
Louvel, Wil.iam, 88
Lydford, 103-07, 162
M.
Macdonald, G., 127
Mackenz e, Sheriff, coins of, 59, 61,
269, 304, 314, 469
Magister mottetanorum, 407, 458,
464
Magnus. King of Norway, 258,
260-61
Malconduit, Robert, 459
Maldon, mint of, 160, 162, 279
Malmesbury, mint of, 407
INDEX.
509
Marlborough, mint of, 407
Mannion, Robert, 417. Roger,
417
Matilda, Queen to William I, 122,
196-97, 211, 342. Her lands,
119-23, 196-97, 397
Matilda, Queen to Henry I, 93,
194, 234, 275, 413, 448. Her
rights at Norwich, 328-331
Matilda, the Empress, 275, 349,
372, 416-17, 431, 436. Her
dowry, 62, 413, 433, 436, 450.
Fealty to, 111, 120, 130, 221,
236, 275
Mayenne, Geoffrey de, 105
Mellent, Robert. See Leicester,
Earls of
,, Waleran, Earl of, 242-50,
431
Meschines. See Chester, Earls of
Michaelmas, at, commenced the Ex-
chequer year, 43, 92, 101
Mint, the Royal, 38, 276
,, ,, coins in, 137, 269,
270, 296-300,
303-04, 307,
325, 466, 468,
470, 489
Mints, Royal, general conditions
of, 1-3, 16-19,
99,155,169,198,
212-14,223,262-
67, 276, 407 et
abibi
,, usually in the city
gates, 278-79,
346, 359, 363
Chartered, general con-
ditions of, 1-3,
18-25, 29, 94-95,
99,132,147,153-
54, 182, 360-69,
481-89 et alibi
,, numberofmoneyers
usually reduced
in, 112 et alibi
,, included in the
grant of a town,
110-11,122,147,
153 et alibi
Number of, increased
by Ethelred II,
20
,, Names of, why intro-
duced on the
money, 17, 30
213
VOL. I. FOURTH SERIES.
Mints, Royal, names of .coins always
issued from the
places named
upon them, 30
of Henry I, see Table
of, ante
Mint marks, explained, 28, 363-
65, 376-78
Minton, W., coin of, 378
Monetagium, 14
Monetarius, title of, 266, 353
Money, standard value of, 198
,, Norman, comparative
value of, 5-7
meaning of incisions in
Henry's, 55, 78, 492
see Legal -tender
Moneyers, royal tenants in eapite,
general con-
ditions of, 1, 17,
24, 29-30, 254,
262-67,280,368-
69, 414, 422, et
alibi
had subordinates,
265, 369
,, customs in Domes-
day concerning,
212-14, 216-17,
331, et alibi
,, usual fees of, 230,
433
,, appointed annu-
ally, 459
grantees', status of, 3,
25,29
, hereditary, 29 ; pedigrees
of, 280-83, 331-32
,, apprenticeship of, 29,
200-01
transferred from other
mints, 112, 116, 126,
200-01, 216, 356-57
letters following names
of, explained, 28 1-82,
338-39
why names of, on coins,
30
Latinized names of, 61,
66, 69, et alibi
false, proclamations
against, 10-12,
48, 54, 56, 79,
475-76, et alibi
Inquisition of the,
"37, 65, 69, 78, 80-81, 95
394, 418,454,461-62, et al\b\
3 U
510
INDEX.
Moneyers, false on conviction lost
their office, 93
,, , punishments of,
8, 29, 48, 55,
80-81, 93, 475
Monnevile, Nigel de, 479
Monograms, 313, 318
Montacute, attack on, 168
Montfort, Hugh de, 197
Morcar, Earl, 410
Morrieson, Major H. W., 273 ;
coins of, 137, 272
Morton, Earl of, 144, 148
Mounds, artificial, 102, 239, 260,
421, 443
Mowbray, Geoffrey de, see Cou-
tances
,, Robert de, 109, 119
Mule, coins, see under Types
Murdoch, J. Gr., coins of, 135, 142,
150, 203, 218, 269, 289, 292,
308,310, 358,370, 391, 436
N.
NA, as name of mint, 316-18, 359
NE, as name olmint, 312-13, 316-
18
Newcastle, 181-82, 313
records of coinage at,
182
Newark mint, 313, 316-18
,, records of coinage at, 316-
18
Nicholson, E. W. B., 117, 353
NICOL, see under Lincoln
Nigel, Joel fitz, 103
Norfolk, Ralph de GVuader, Earl of,
211, 214-15, 220, 228-32, 242,
326
Norham Castle, 178
Normandy, Robert, Duke of, 48,
51, 52, 120, 174-75, 198, 252-53,
256, 394, 396, 433, 440, 454, 460
Northampton, 219, 330
,, history and coins of,
318-26
,, records of moneyers
at, 320, 323
,, earlsof, Simon, 222-
26, 241, 244-45,
320-21, 344;
David, 221-27,
320-23; Simon IL,
221-27
Northumberland, moneyers in, 141,
181-82
Northumbria, Earls of, 177, 320 ;
Siward, 219-20
,, early coinage in, 9,
481
, , halfpenny intro-
duced in, 9
Norwich, 230, 384, 413, 418, 421,
425-26
,, history and coins of,
326-39, 378
,, records of moneyers at,
327, 331-32
,, Bishop's privilege of
coinage at, 327-28
Bishops of, 27, 327;
Everard, 327 ; Herbert,
234, 327, 387, 389,
413-14
Nottingham Castle Museum, 38,
348
coins in, 290, 297
Nottingham, 239
,, history and coins of,
340-51, 484
,, records of coinage
at, 341-42
,, records of monyers
at, 341-42
,, account of the find
of coins at, 347-
49
,, the Trent fisheries
at, 341, 343, 350
bridge at, 340
Novant, Roger de, 103, 105
Nunant, Wido de, 105-07
0.
Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, 119, 173-
75, 274, 379-82
Odo of Winchester, 393, 396
OF instead of ON upon a coin, 31
Ogden, W. S., coin of, 312
Oilli, Robert d', 352, 431, 434
Robert (II) d', 3o2
Nigel d', 431, 433, 435
Oman, C. W. C., 117
ON, upon coins, its meaning, 30-31
,, sometimes omitted or con-
tracted, 31, 335, 337
Ordgar, citizen of London, 304
Osbert, Sheriff of York, 483-84
Osbert, Richard fitz, 272, 338, 414
Otto or Otho, see under Aurifabri
Oxford, 94, 318, 404, 418, 425,
433
INDEX.
511
Oxford, history and coins of, 351-
59, 434-35
,, records of coinage at,
352-354
,, records of moneyers at,
318, 320, 323, 353-54,
357-58
the New Hall at, 352-53,
356
canal at, 352
Harding of, 352
,, Wimund, Prior of, 352
P.
Page, S., 237, 247
coins of, 237, 277, 466
Passelawe, Ralph, 389
PAX on coins, 51, 163
PAXS type of William I., 179,
183
Paynell, Ralph, 348
Peckham, 274
Peckover, A., 336
Pecunia, its Exchequer meaning,
179
Perry. Dr. M., coin of, 270
Peterborough, 219, 383
, , history and coins of,
230, 360-71, 388,
397, 487
records of coinage
at, 361-63, 397
>, records of moneyers
at, 361, 369
Abbots of, 369;
Arnulf, 360, 379 ;
Godric, 360; John,
360-61; Matthias,
360 ; Martin, 361
Anchitel, priest of,
361
Peverell family, the, 192, 340-50
Pevensey, 94, 204-05, 252, 417
Pin, Morin del, 243, 246-48
Pipe Roll, A.D. 1129-30, 3, 91,158,
and see under the
various mints
records of moneyers in,
93-94 et alibi
Pistres, Eoger de, 122, 197
Plates of coins, inaccuracy of old,
117, 134
Pomerium, the, 341
Pont de 1'Arche, William de, 153,
157, 406, 456
Population of England in Henry's
reign, 100
Portraits on coins, 9, 87-89
,, custom of reversing the
king's, 38
Portsmouth, 191, 408, 450
Profile types, their special purpose,
35-38, 69, 81, 86
R.
Radumf, Ailwinus fitz, 290
Ralph, the Chancellor, 414
Ralph, Pincerna, 243, 247-50
Ramsey, Abbot of, 386
Rashleigh, J., 34, 91, 98, 186, 238,
296, 298, 302-03, 305, 307, 311,
350, 402, 404, 467
Reading, 383
history and coins of, 28,
371-78, 487
records of coinage at, 28,
373-75
records of moneyer of,
373-74
Recto, writ de, 115
Redvers, Richard de, 187, 189-92
,, Baldwin de, 187, 189,
459
,, family of, 188-94
Revel, Robert, 319
Reynolds, H. M., coins of, the
Dymock specimen, 127, 304, 390-
91, 437, 489,491
Rhuddlan mint, 147, 492
RIG, supposed mint, explained,
378
Richard I., coinage of, 15
Ridel, Geoffrey, 456
Rochester, 92, 130
,, history and coins of,
378-84
records of coinage at,
380-81
,, records of moneyers at,
382-83
,, bishops of, 130. 379-83
Castle of, 130, 379-80
,, bridge at, 92
,, Henry's statue at, 88
Romney, 173-74
,, mint of, 384
Both, B., coins of, 238, 270, 288,
337, 383
Roumare, Gerald de, 398 ; Roger
de, 145-46; Walter de, 398 ; Wil-
liam de, 188, 194, 262, 298-99
512
INDEX.
Bound, J. H., on the Earldom of
Gloucester, 24, 120, 125, 199,
477 ; the tertiusdenarhts, 161-62,
189; EudoDapifer, 164; Henry's
second marriage, 226 ; Ipswich,
232 ; Plympton charter, 236, 444,
486 ; Leicester, 244, 249 ; citizens
of London, 280 ; charter to Lon-
don, 284, 375 ; Savigny charter,
330
Rye, 206
8.
Sadd, A. H., coins of, 186, 293,
295, 377, 429, 466
St. Edmundsbury, mint, 230
,, history and coins
of, 385-92
records of coin-
age at, 27,
387, 389
Salisbury, 168, 205, 219,408, 450
history and coins of,
392-402
,, bishops of, 120 ; Roger,
80, 352, 373-74, 393,
397, 440
Edward of, 324, 393-400
Walter of, 395-401
Patrick of, 395
castle of, 394-96
market at, 394, 448
Sandwich, 173-74
history and coins of,
402-05
coins previously appro-
priated to, 390
Scandinavian money, probably
coined at Lincoln, 261
Sceatta, the, 481
Seal, Henry's great, 44 ; see also
under Index to Plates
Shaftesbury, 450
mint of, 94, 216, 407,
418, 425, 458
Sherborne, 101-02, 393
Ship service, customs of, 103, 114,
173-75, 197, 206, 252, 255-56,
404
" Short-cross " type, the, 15-16
Shrewsbury, 152, 417
,, mint of, 94, 191
,, Earls of. Roger, 122,
152, 153; Hugh,
152, 154 ; Robert
de Beleme, 152-54,
190, 215, 438-41
Smith, S., 261 ; coins of, 337, 339,
489
Sorell, William, 411
Southampton, 191, 450
,, history and coins of,
323, 405-10, 407
Southwark mint appended to Lon-
don, 277, 407
history and coins of,
273-316
,, money era removed to
London, 285, 302
St. Mary's at, 274
Spicer, F., 135, 357
coins of, 135, 299, 467,
470, 490
Spink and Son, coins of, 64, 75,
126, 137, 291, 297- 302, 307, 309,
313-14, 324, 370, 420, 442, 452,
465-68
Stamford, 239, 360-69, 388. See
under Peterborough
Star, as an ornament on coins, 62-63
Stephen, coinage of, 9, 20, 32, 44,
53, 95, 98, 100 et alibi
Stevenson and Napier on Barn-
staple, 103
Styca, the, 9, 481
Succession, Norman customs of,
116, 148, 152, 190,
211, 226, 235, 242,
246, 320-21
,, to personal effects and
office, 179, 331
Sudbury, 418
history and coins of, 409-
15
, , records of coinage at, 4 1 1-
14
,, records of money ers at,
266, 413-14
,, market at, 409
Sun, the, on Edward IV. 's money,
63
Surrey, Earl of, see Warren
Sussex, Earl of, 156
T.
Taillebois, Ivo, 258
Tamworth, 171, 295
,, history and coins of,
409, 415-20, 425
castle of, 417
Taunton, mint, 94
Tertius denarius, the, its distinctions,
161-62, 189, 243
INDEX.
513
Tertius denarius of Barnstaple, 104
,, Gloucester, 121
Bristol ? 120
Chester, 144,
146
,, Chichester ? 152
,, ,, Colchester, 161
Dover, 173, 175
Exeter, 189, 191,
194
Huntingdon,
220 222
Ipswich, 228-33
,, Leicester, 240,
243
,, Lewes, 252, 255
,, Lincoln, 258, 262
,, ,, ,, Norwich, 327
,, Nottingham, 343
Salisbury, 393,
395-97
Thetford, 422
,, ..Warwickshire,
443
Worcester, 472-
75
Tewkesbury, 124-25
Thetford, 54, 117, 230, 412, 418
history and coins of,
420-29
records of coinage at,
421-25
,, records of money ers at,
422, 424, 426, 428
Bishop's right of coinage
at, 327-28
Fulchard of, 422
Thinghoe, hundred of, 410
Tilleul, Humphrey de, 204, 206-
07
Tinchebrai, Battle of, 63, 164, 178,
184, 192, 207, 241, 253, 344, 398-
99
Tiverton, 191
Totness, 103-07
Joel fitz Alfred de,
103-07
Travers, William, 312, 357
Treasury, the royal, 99, 460-
61
Types, description of Henry's,
42-99
,, always successive, 12,
13, 16, 22, 23, 34-38,
94
chronological order of, 42-
99
Type,
75
Types, chronological order of, not
previously attempted, 3,
41
of Henry I believed to be
complete, 34, 94
reasons why some more
plentiful, 34, 35, 70, 82,
95
average period of issue of,
35, 37, 70, 95
period of currency of,
limited by profile types,
35-38, 69, 81, 86
constant changes in, 16
constant changes in, abo-
lished by Henry II, 15
of Stephen's reign con-
fused with Henry I's,
99-100
"Mule," 48, 59, 64, 69,
74, 75, 78, 82, et alibi
"Mule" explained, 41,
86, see "Table of the
Mints and their Types "
a new, or pattern of Henry I,
U.
Underditch, hundred of, 396
Uiviet, Thomas fitz, 480, 490
V.
Valonges, Peter de, 265-66
Vere, Aubrey de, 97, 374
Verity, J., 158 ; coins of, 151, 158,
209, 257, 270-71, 287, 292-S6,
298-300, 304, 306, 315, 324, 838,
350, 370, 377, 427, 429, 465, 470,
489
W.
Wakeford, G., 98
Waleran, of Colchester, 160-61
Walkelin, of Colchester, 160-61
Wallingford, 84, 195, 418, 425
,, history and coins of,
430-37
records of coinage at,
430, 432, 434
,, records of money ers
at, 435
Wigod, Thane of,
431, 434
castle of, 430-31
Wallis, G., 347-48
514
INDEX.
Walters, F. A., coins of, 293, 296,
335, 452
Waltheof, see under Northampton
Wareham, 407, 446, 458
,, history and coins of,
437-42
records of coinage at,
438
,, records of moneyers at,
441, 458
,, castle of, 438, 440
Warren family, Earls of Surrey,
47, 119, 122, 252-56
Warwick, 409
,, history and coins of,
443-47
records of moneyers at,
446-47
,, Earls of, Henry, 240,
443 ; Roger, 348, 444-
46
castle of, 443
Waterville, Hugh de, 361
Webster, W. J., 172, 292, 478
Wells, 110-11
Wells, W. C., coins of, 324, 365
Westminster Abbey, 93 ; see Lon-
don
Whelan, F. E., coins of, 311, 464,
469
White Ship, wreck of the, 145,
148, 229, 234, 394, 399-400, 460,
477
White, John, justified, 66, 90, 117-
18
Whitlingham, Godwine of, 422,
428
Wight, Isle of, 192
William I, coinage of, 8, 14, 21-
23, 44, 76, 79, 110
et alibi
Tomb of, 26
William II, coinage of, 8, 14, 23,
43, 54, 79, 110 et alibi
William, Prince, son of Henry I,
234, 294, 433, 477
William Clito, son of Robert of
Normandy, 205, 208, 232, 247
Wilton, 394, 409, 448
,, history and coins of, 407,
448-52
,, records of coinage at, 449
, , records of moneyers at, 45 1
Wilton, burgesses of, 451
,, fair at, 448
Winchester, 25, 120, 121, 123, 168,
187, 195-96, 220,
223, 261, 306, 325,
408, 430, 449
history and coins of,
151, 407, 439, 453-
71, 476
,, records of coinage at,
456, 460-61
records of moneyers
at, 407, 457-59, 464
Bishops of, 92. Wil-
liam, 163, 406, 453-
54, 456. Henry,
454
,, the Domesday of, 455-
60, 477
,, Hyde Abbey at, 454
Winser, T. B., coins of, 304, 314
Woodstock, 92, 408
Worcester, the Victoria Institute
at, 38, 218
Worcester, 116, 417
,, history and coins of,
472-78
,, records of coinage at,
27, 472-73
Bishops of , Aldred, 472 ;
Samson, 473, 475 ;
Simon, 372, 473 ;
Theowulf, 473
Castle of, 473
Y.
York, 187, 220, 235, 261
,, history and coins of, 141,
478-91
records of coinage at, 479,
482-88
Archbishops of, Gerard, 212,
479, 482-85 ; Thomas,
479, 484 ; Thurstan, 479-
80, 485-88
Turgis, collector of, 480-87
guild of merchants at, 480,
490
,, castle of, 479
Young, Dr., 127
Young, J., coins of, 292, 310
INDEX. 515
INDEX TO PLATES.
Plate
I. Page 44. The example illustrated is, however, of later date than
that referred to in the letter-press, being an impression of
Henry's third, or perhaps fourth, seal.
II. Nos. 1 = 135. 2 = 287. 3 = 384. 4 = 257. 5 = 295. 6 =
291. 7 = 428. 8 = 369. 9 = 227. 10 = 237. 11 = 452.
12 = 429. 13 = 467. 14 = 136.
III. Nos. 1 = 291. 2 = 293. 3 = 469. 4 = 471. 5 = 301. 6 =
429. 7 = 291. 8 = 301. 9 = 467. 10=309.
IV. Nos. 1 = 311. 2 = 428. 3 = 467. 4 = 471. 5 = 308. 6 =
426. 7 = 307. 8 = 442. 9 = 308. 10 = 158. 11=305.
V. Nos. 1=469. 2 = 314. 3 = 311. 4 = 289. 5 = 308. 6 =
158. 7 = 478. 8 = 427. 9=302. 10=336. 11 = 150.
12 = 127.
VI. Nos. 1 = 289. 2 = 271. 3 = 290. 4 = 210. 5 = 336. 6 =
272. 7 = 134. 8 = 302. 9 = 271. 10 = 436. 11 = 292.
VII. Nos. 1 = 391. 2 = 447. 3 = 126. 4 = 293. 5 = 306 6 =
142. 7 = 293. 8 = 218. 9 = 358. 10 = 309. 11 = 203.
12= 138.
VIII. Nos. 1 = 442. 2 = 420. 3 = 390. 4 = 250. 5 = 350. 6 =
452. 7 = 315. 8 = 442. 9 = 315. 10 = 297
END OF VOL. I.
PRINTEH BY H. VIRTUE ADD COMPANY, LIMITED, CITY ROAD, LOJCDOM.
C/iron S'er.SKVot
TYPE I
(HAWKINS 251 )
TYPE II
(HAWKINS 254)
TY PE IV
(HAWKINS 252)
TYPE IV
(HAWKINS 252)
TYPE VI
(HAWKINS 257)
TYPE VII
(HAWKINS 26?)
TYPE XI
(HAWKINS iv)
TYPE VII
(HAWKINS 257)
TYPE XII
(HAWKINS 258)
COINS OF HENRY I.
GJ
1
N6
ser.4-
v.l
The Numismatic chronicle
and journal of the Royal
Numismatic Society
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
