David and persons in considering the date of this record, but surely without cause. Henry were upon excellent terms, and there are occasional traces in the chroniclers, and in this record, of the influence of the Scottish King over his powerful contemporary. There cannot be any good reason for supposing that every visit he made to England has been recorded in the Chronicles, nor ought it to be thought that the certainty with which Mr. Hunter's date is fixed by other circumstances, is at all shaken by the fact that there is no evidence except this Roll to prove that the visit in question took place in the year 1130. It is unquestionable, from the mode in which the payments are recorded, that the King of Scotland did come into England in the year to which the Roll belongs, and indeed the period of his coming and returning are pretty nearly fixed in the following manner :-The King's demesne Honor of Blida, is accounted for by two persons, each rendering account for half a year. One of them, therefore, accounted from Michaelmas 1129 to Lady Day 1130, and the other from that period to Michaelmas 1130. Now in each of these accounts there is a corody for the King of Scotland. (Vid. p. 9 and p. 36.) He must, therefore, have passed through Blida once between Michaelmas 1129 and Lady Day 1130, and once between that time and Michaelmas in that year. In the instance of the account for Yorkshire, which relates to the whole year, there is a charge for a corody for the King of Scotland, in coming to the court and returning.'—p. 24. And in the account for Northumberland, which is also an account for the whole year, the fact is even more distinctly expressed :-' for a corody for the King of Scotland in coming to the court of the King in England, and returning from England into Scotland.'-p. 35. We think that Mr. Hunter, upon reconsideration of this subject, will see reason for altering the statements respecting this visit of the King of Scotland, at p. xix of his preface. We had marked many other passages for extract and remark, but our decreasing space warns us to advance to the concluding portion of our subject. The condition of the bulk and body of the people is one great token of the general state of society. All the institutions of government silently, perhaps, and gradually, but certainly, take their tone from the condition of those who constitute the mass of every society, and if there be but a little of the 'leaven' of freedom amongst the people, it is soon found to leaven the whole lump.' Hence the importance, in all historical inquiries, of considering the actual condition of the people; hence, again, the value of records in the minute entries of which this subject may be studied far more effectually than in the disquisitions of your philosophers;' hence, finally, the unappreciable value of a continuous series of records like our Pipe Rolls, in which may be traced the progress of our free institutions from their origin up to that fullblown dignity' in which we now behold them. In the Record before us we ascend to the very birth-place of these institutions, and find the people, who are their subjects, in a state, so far as concerns legal rights, nearly approaching to the condition of slaves. With few exceptions, the inferior ranks of the people are to be traced, in this volume, either as the vassals of some lord, who was responsible to the law for their actions, and paid the fines assessed on account of their delinquencies, or amongst the 'minuti homines' of the counties over whom the sheriff exercised probably an almost uncontrolled authority. Thus, to select instances at random, at p. 55, the Bishop of London and Robert Fitz Richard are both found accounting for their vassals. The former for his men of Clachestona,' and the latter for a certain man belonging to him.' Instances of the accounts rendered by the sheriffs for the minuti homines' or lowest class of tenants within their jurisdictions, are to be found in almost every county. See pp. 56, 103, &c. Even here, however, we can find clear indications of the growing wealth, and, as a consequence, the increasing importance of the humbler classes. When freedom was purchaseable, there were soon found men whose industry pl them in a situation to become its purchasers. When he who applied to t 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 361. Os. 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: 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, 1087. 8s. 6d.Dorsetshire, 2281. 58.-Wiltshire, 3887. 13s.-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. 18s. 6d.—Staffordshire, 441. 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. 128.-Warwickshire, 1287. 12s. 6d. Lincolnshire, probably about 2601. but the Roll is defective in the part which contained the amount remaining unpaid.-Berkshire, 2007. 18. 3d.-Rutlandshire, 117. 12s.—Middlesex, 857. Os. 6d.— Devonshire more than 207. but the Roll is defective.-Cornwall, 227. 158. 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, 157.—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, 57.-Burgh of Hertford, 101.-The city of Canterbury, 207.-Burgh of Stafford, 31. 68. 8d.-Burgh of Tamworth, in Staffordshire, 17. 5s.-The city of Gloucester, 157.-The burgh of Winchelcombe, 31.-Norwich, 307.-The burgh of Thetford, 107.-Burgh of Ipswich, 77.Burgh of Bedford, 51.-Burgh of Tamworth, in Warwickshire, 17. 108.-The city of Lincoln, 601.-Burgh of Stamford, 57.-Burgh of Northampton, 107.-The city of Colchester, 197. 198. 2d. Burgh of Warengeford, 157.-The city of London, 1201.— Total, 552. 08. 10d.' 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. COINS OE THE MR. URBAN, Cork, Sept. 30. IN the xx11d 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 KINGS OF MERCIA. 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, o which last, Pl. 33, No. 14, alse 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 Ì. 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. Mr. This 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. 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 HS being on the former coins united in a singular manner. 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 I. 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 observations 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 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. 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 AD¶ALLIN, 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, JOHN LINDSAY. 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 w melted. As they were chiefly per One gen |