Изображения страниц

taking in his hand a gift, could obtain liberty and protection, it would soon become the custom to fly from petty tyrants to the throne.' The following entries afford clear indications of such a custom.

Robert de Cealsa accounts for seven marks of silver, that Symon de Belcamp, his lord, should not give his services without his consent.'-p. 62.

William Fitz Otho accounts for 367. 08. 10d. that he may no longer have a master over him.'-p. 145.

But it is in the aggregate that the importance of the lower classes is first felt by themselves, and first becomes apparent to their superiors. Hence the origin of corporate privileges, which gave to the mass a dignity and power to which no one individual amongst them dared lay claim. Many instances of the progress of these exclusive jurisdictions might be quoted from this record, especially with respect to the King's homines,' or the tenants of his demesne lands, and the 'homines,' or tenants of lords, whose lands had come into the King's hands. Some of these particulars have previously fallen under our notice.

The ignorance of the people may be inferred from the extraordinary practice of the trial by ordeal—a delusion as singular as the belief in witchcraft. But it is not merely the ignorance of the people that is proved by this practice, but also the prevalence of perjury amongst them. When the oath of an accused person, and the oaths of his compurgators, were known to be unworthy of belief, what other resource was there whereby justice might be obtained? The intellect of the time was not strong enough to devise any other means than a direct appeal to the Deity, whose visible interposition in favour of justice was fondly anticipated. The wealthy, however, could defeat all the devices of superstition, and the people were cheated even out of their favourite delusions. For instance,

Gospatric, of Newcastle, owes 20 marks that he may purge himself of the judgment of iron by his oath.'-p. 35.

Matthew de Vernon owes 100 measures of wine for the concord of a duel for his brother.'-p. 4.

Perjury is usually found to prevail most in that stage of the progress of society in which crimes committed with force abound the most. Such was the case in England. The trial by ordeal is a convincing proof that the sanction of an oath was misunderstood, or not attended to, and we have in these pages, and in the number of murders they record, extraordinary evidence of the prevalence of crimes committed with force. The hundred in which a murder was committed, was liable to an amercement, which was collected and accounted for by the sheriff. These accounts, as they here appear, are of two kinds, one, for murders formerly committed and previously debited, and perhaps partly paid; the other, for murders committed, or at any event the fines for which had been assessed, during the past year. The entries relating to the first description of account are very numerous, but do not affect our present point, the latter stand as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Thirty-eight murders committed in one year, in a comparatively small part of England! The counties omitted may have accounted for their murders in some other manner.

It ought also to be noticed, that these murders were probably all upon the persons of Normans, for, upon a presentment of Englishery,' that is, that the person killed was an Englishmen, the hundred would have been excused its payment.

Many curious and valuable statistical details relating to the public burthens abound throughout the volume; details from which may be ascertained the comparative wealth, population, and importance of the several counties, as well as the amount of the public revenue. The following account shows the amount of Danegeld contributed by the several counties :

'Oxfordshire, 2391. 98. 3d.-Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, 1081. 8s. 6d.Dorsetshire, 2281. 58.-Wiltshire, 3887. 138.-Yorkshire, 1657. 198. 6d.—Northumberland, 1007.-Isle of Wight, 137. 18.-Cambridgeshire, 1147. 158.-Huntingdonshire, 601. 58.-Surrey, 1757. 18.-Essex, 2361. 88.-Hertfordshire, 1107. 18. 4d. -Kent, 1057. 28. 10d.-Sussex, 2091. 188. 6d.-Staffordshire, 447. Os. 4d.-Gloucestershire, 1797. 118. 8d.-Northamptonshire, 1197. 58. 7d.-Leicestershire, 1007.Norfolk, 3301. 28. 2d.—Suffolk, 2351. Os. 8d.—Buckinghamshire, 2047. 148. 7d.—Bedfordshire, 1107. 12s.-Warwickshire, 1287. 128. 6d.-Lincolnshire, probably about 2601. but the Roll is defective in the part which contained the amount remaining unpaid.-Berkshire, 2001. 18. 3d.-Rutlandshire, 117. 128.-Middlesex, 857. Os. 6d.— Devonshire more than 207. but the Roll is defective.-Cornwall, 221. 15s. 10d.—Total of the thirty counties, 4,3667. 178.'

The aids paid by the cities and burghs were as follows:

The city of Oxford, 201.-The burghs in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Derby being the only one mentioned, 151.-The burghs in Dorsetshire, Dorchester and St. Edward being the only burghs mentioned, 15-Burghs in Wiltshire, 177.-The city of York, 401.-The city of Winchester, 801.-Burgh of Cambridge, 121.-Burgh of Huntingdon, 87.-Burgh of Southwark, 41.-Burgh of Guildford, 51.-Burgh of Hertford, 107.-The city of Canterbury, 201.-Burgh of Stafford, 31. 68. 8d.—Burgh of Tamworth, in Staffordshire, 17. 58. The city of Gloucester, 157.-The burgh of Winchelcombe, 31.-Norwich, 301.-The burgh of Thetford, 107.-Burgh of Ipswich, 71.— Burgh of Bedford, 51.—Burgh of Tamworth, in Warwickshire, 17. 108.-The city of Lincoln, 607.-Burgh of Stamford, 51.-Burgh of Northampton, 107.-The city of Colchester, 197. 19s. 2d. Burgh of Warengeford, 157.-The city of London, 1207.— Total, 552. 08. 10d.'

[ocr errors]

We might pursue this subject much further in the firms paid for the counties and burghs, the censuses of the forests, and various other payments which are here recorded; but we must forbear, contenting ourselves with merely directing attention to this branch of the inquiry, which we believe has not hitherto been noticed. The wide extent of the subject would lead us into details which, however important, are incompatible with the many claims upon our space. All persons who feel any interest in the state of England at this early period will do well to investigate them thoroughly.


MR. URBAN, Cork, Sept. 30. IN the xxd volume of the Archæologia I perceive a mode of arranging the coins of Ciolwulf I. and II. kings of Mercia, communicated by Mr. Hawkins to the Society of Antiquaries, in which that learned gentleman assigns those with Ceolvulf to the first king of that name, and those with Ciolvulf to the second; but a close investigation of the subject having long since satisfied my own mind that not only all those with Ceolvulf, but also those with Ciulvulf (except that pub


lished by Ruding, Pl. 7, No. 2), belong to the first prince of that name, I think it right to lay before you and your learned readers the grounds on which I have arrived at this conclusion.

For this purpose it will be necessary to consider, 1st. the types; 2d. the formation of the letters; 3d. the moneyer's names; 4th. the word Dorobernia, which occurs on one of these coins.

Six of these coins appear in Rudi and ten in the Archæologia, c which last, Pl. 33, No. 14, also

in Ruding, Pl. 29, No. 17: and I shall begin by examining each of these coins separately.

Pl. viii. Nos. 1 and 2 of Ruding bear on the reverse types resembling those of Burgred, Nos. 1 to 8 inclusive, and have by Ruding been given to Ciolwulf II.; but a comparison of the moneyer's names, with those of other kings, (one of them, Hereberht, being found only on the coins of Coenwulf and Archbishop Ceolnoth, and the other, Oba, on those of Offa, Cenedred, Coenwulf, Egbert, and Baldred,) will satisfy us that these coins belong to Ciolwulf I.

Pl. 33, No. 3, of the 23d volume of the Archæologia, exhibits, on the reverse, a type similar to one found on the coins of Ethelwulf, Berhtulf, and Ciolvulf, No. 14 of same plate; and the moneyer Sigestef occurs on coins of Coenwulf, Egbert, and Alfred.

The reverse of No. 4 resembles that of the following in Ruding: Offa, Nos. 9, 10, 11, 30; Egbert, Pl. 5, No. 1; and Coenulf, No. 19, all types long preceding the time of the second Ciolwulf: the moneyer Wothel does not occur on the coins of any other king.

The reverse of No. 5 is exactly the same, both as to type and moneyer, to that of Ludica, who succeeded Ciolwulf I.

The reverses of Nos. 6, 7, 8, are the same as that of Burgred Nos. 1 to 8, and Alfred No. 4. The moneyers Bertwin, Woddel, and another which I cannot read, are of unusual occurrence, but that of Woddel is probably the same as Wothel on No. 4, whose type, as I have observed, is similar to others long preceding the time of Ciolwulf II.

The type of No. 9 differs from that of any other Anglo-Saxon coin; but it appears to be as early as any of the preceding.

All these coins bear the name of Ceolwulf; and as they are all admitted by Mr. Hawkins to belong to the first king of that name, I shall proceed to notice those which bear the name of Ciolwulf, and which Mr. Hawkins assigns to Ciolwulf II.

Pl. 7, No. 1, Ruding. The type of the reverse of this coin occurs only on Coenulf, No. 15, and Egberht, No. 4, and the moneyer Ealstan only on the coins of Coenulf, so that without some

strong additional evidence we can hardly hesitate in assigning this coin to Ciolwulf I.

Pl. 27 Ruding, is nearly the same as Pl. 29, No. 17 Ruding, and Pl. 33, No. 14 of the Archæologia. The type of the reverse is similar to those of Ceolwulf, No. 3 of the ArchæologiaBerthulf and Ethelwulf. The moneyer Eanwlf occurs only on a styca of Osberht, and Ealstan on coins of Coenulf; and from both type and moneyers they would appear more likely to belong to Ciolwulf I.

No. 16 Archæologia, presents a type found on all the coins of most common occurrence, from Offa to Ethelwulf, but particularly those struck in the early part of the 9th century; and the moneyer Ealstan is found only on coins of Coenwulf. These circumstances leave little doubt of its belonging to Ciolwulf 1.

We now come to a coin, Archæologia, Pl. 33, No. 15, which Mr. Hawkins considers as decisive of the question; and argues from its exhibiting the word Dorobernia, that this coin, which bears the name of Ciolwulf, belongs to the second king of that name; as he says Ceolwulf I. who reigned only one year, was, during the whole of that short period, contemporary with Baldred king of Kent, and could not have had the power of coining money in Canterbury. This position, however, I must with all deference beg leave to dispute. Rapin mentions that Coenwulf king of Mercia, having defeated and taken prisoner Edberht king of Kent, placed on the throne of that kingdom Cuthred, who reigned eight years his tributary and vassal; after his death Coenwulf permitted Baldred his son to succeed him.

In a more modern work also, Palgrave's History of the Anglo-Saxon Period of the English History, (the accuracy of which, in following the most authentic accounts of more ancient writers, is deserving of every praise,) we find, page 94, that Cynewulf having seized the kingdom of Kent, proclaimed himself king; that Kent continued thus subjugated during several years, though the Mercians frequently appointed under kings, or dependant sovereigns, who governed the land as vassals of the Mercian crown. The first sovereign of this description after the

Mercian conquest being Cuthred the brother of Cynewulf, who received the country as an appanage. In the next page Baldred, the Mercian subregulus, or under king, is mentioned as flying beyond the Thames from Egbert. These authorities will, I believe, be considered sufficient to warrant us in concluding that Ciolwulf I. not only might have coined money in Kent, but that it is exceedingly probable that the money composing the tribute should bear the head of Ciolwulf, whilst on the other hand I can find no historical mention of any connexion between the second Ciolwulf and the kingdom of Kent.

If then we consider No. 15 as belonging to Ciolwulf I. we must also, 1 think, give to the same prince all those which bear the name of Ciolvulf, except that published in Ruding, Pl. 7, No. 2, which single coin I am inclined to assign to Ciolvulf II. Mr. Hawkins, in assigning the coins bearing the name of Ciolvulf to the second prince of that name, considers one of the strongest arguments in support of his opinion to be the form of the letters; those with Ciolvulf being formed of triangular marks, and much more rude than those with Ceolvulf, and the letters H S being on the former coins united in a singular manner. This difference presents certainly a difficulty, the only one in my opinion against our assigning all these coins to Ciolwulf I. but this difficulty may be met by supposing them struck in different parts of the extensive kingdom of Mercia, or one class perhaps in Mercia, and the other in Kent; and the strong resemblance, both as to types and moneyers, which exists between them and the coins preceding and contemporary with those of Ciolwulf I. and also between those with Ceolvulf and those with Ciolvulf, together with the extreme probability that the coin bearing the word Dorobernae must have been struck by Ciolwulf 1. renders it, in my opinion, nearly certain that all these coins, with perhaps the one single exception I have alluded to, belong to Ciulwulf I.: and I shall now offer one or two observa

Plate No. 4; but the moneyer Dealing is only found on coins of Alfred; and a comparison of the head on this with some of those on coins of Alfred, renders it still more probable that this coin was struck about the time of that prince, and consequently by Ciolwulf II.

tions on that coin. It is published in Ruding, Pl. 7, No. 2. Its type resembles that of Offa, Nos. 9, 10, 11, 30, and also that in Mr. Hawkins's

Before I conclude this letter, I wish to offer a few remarks on another Anglo-Saxon coin, published in the Gentleman's Magazine for April 1832, page 304, and again in a more accurate manner by another correspondent in the first Supplement to that year page 602. It is a styca, bearing on one side the legend EGBERHT· AR, and which belongs, as is admitted by both correspondents, to Egbert Abp. of York, who possessed that see from 734 to 766, and was brother to Edbert King of Northumberland. The legend of the reverse, if accurately given, is ADЯALLIN, which Mr. Gordon reads ATHEALBIN, or WIN, and calls it the name of a moneyer, but which appears to me to be intended for ATHBALD.R, or perhaps ATHBALDVS, and was probably the name of Adelwald King of Northumberland, who reigned from 759 to 765, during which time Egbert was Abp. of York. And if this appropriation is correct, it will confirm (if indeed such confirmation is necessary) the appropriation to Northumberland of the coins formerly, but in my opinion erroneously, given to Egbert King of Kent. Yours, &c.


MR. URBAN, Cork, Sept. 17. IT has lately come to my knowledge, that about the year 1830, a labourer who was digging in a field near Youghal, at the depth (as he stated) of about twelve inches below the surface, struck his spade against an earthen vessel, which in consequence was broken. It was filled with silver coins, which, having carefully collected, he brought to Cork, and sold to a silversmith, who informed me he paid the countryman eighty-five pounds. The weight of the silver was between three and four hundred ounces. tleman in Cork had the picking of the hoard, and subsequently another in Dublin: what they did not select were melted. As they were chiefly pennies,

One gen

there should have been about eight thousand coins; and I have heard it supposed there were that number at least, of which not more than forty were halfpence. The great mult of these coins were English pennies of Edward the First and Second, but none of Edward the Third. Most of them from the mints of London, Durham, Canterbury, Lincoln, York, St. Edmondsbury, Newcastle, Berwick, and Bristol. A few from the mints of Exeter, Kingston, and Hadley; one or two Acquitain pennies, but none of Reading or Chester.

There were also a great number of Irish coins of Edward I. and II. struck at Dublin and Waterford, including several halfpence; one Cork penny and one Cork halfpenny; a Dublin penny, having the bust without the triangle, similar to the English coinage.

Of Scotch coins, a great number of pennies of Alexander the Third, and one halfpenny, two or three pennies of John Baliol, and a few of Robert I.

From twenty to thirty foreign sterlings, two or three of which are unpublished varieties.

A few months since a countryman near Tallow, found a hoard of coins, chiefly copper. A few of the St. Patrick's halfpence; halfpence also of Charles the Second, dates 1680, 81, 82, and 83; James the Second, 1686 & 88; William and Mary, 1692, 93, and 94; and William III. 1696. A few silver coins were with them. English, from Charles I. to William III. French of Louis the Thirteenth and Fourteenth, and Spanish of Charles the Second. Yours, &c. R. S.


Sept. 15.

IT may be satisfactory perhaps to your correspondent, L. A.' in p. 226, to be informed, that in the second volume of the Antiquarian Repertory,' there is a short biographical account of Sir Henry Unton, or Umpton, accompanied with a portrait.

The Sir Edward Unton who married Catharine, a daughter of the fourth Earl of Huntingdon, was Sir Henry's elder brother. Their sister Cecil was twice married; her first husband having been Sir John Wentworth, of Gosfield-hall, Essex, by whom she had

Sir John Wentworth, knight and baronet, with other children. She married secondly, Sir Edward Hobbee, or Hoby; and dying in 1618, was buried at Aston Rowant, in Oxfordshire.

Her brother, Sir Edward, having been slain in the Portugal Voyage,' undertaken in the years 1589, 1590, and 1591, Sir Henry succeeded to the family property; and he having died in 1595, administration to his effects was, shortly afterwards, issued to Cecil and her husband.

Skelton, in his 'Oxfordshire,' alludes to Aston Rowant as being an ancient possession of the Untons; but I have much doubt on this point. It belonged certainly to Sir Alexander Unton, grandfather of the said Edward, Henry, and Cecil, who made his will in 1547; but it is not mentioned either in the will made in 1533, of their great grandfather, Sir Thomas Unton; that proved, about two years afterwards, of his widow, Dame Elizabeth Unton; or in the will of their younger son Thomas, proved in 1543.

Portions of the Unton property situate in Stokenchurch, a hamlet of Aston Rowant, were purchased by the Tipping family; and some of it is, I believe, in possession at this day of their representatives; who (see Lyssons's Berks, &c.) are the Wrough


[ocr errors]

The Unton Pedigree in Ashmole, begins with Hugh, the father of Sir Thomas, and I much suspect that the following party, who had respectable property at, and near to, Sculthorpe, in Norfolk, and whose Memorial there (see Blomefield and Parkin, and Cotman's Norfolk Brasses,) runs thus:

"Hic jacet Henricus Dnton, gen tilman, quondam Cirographus d'ni Gegis de Co'i Banco: qui obiit vicesimo septimo die mens' Augusti Ao d’ni CCCC°_{xx°_cup_a'ie p'picier' deus. Amen.”

was of the same family. He is represented kneeling in prayer, in armour, with sword and spurs.

His will, in which a brother Hugh Unton is mentioned, was registered at the Prerog. Court, in 1471 (2 Wattis); the testator had some property in Lancashire; and the will of the following party, who, from its contents, was evidently of Sculthorp connexion, was

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »