306 Coins of Kings of Scotland. the earliest and rudest bearing that name must be given to Alexander II. Some of these reasons I slightly noticed in a former letter, but as we are now about to consider the coins of Alexander II. it will be proper to examine the matter more at large in this place. The coins which have been assigned to Alexander I. bear a rude head to the left, generally without a crown, but in one instance having a crown of pearls; some of them bear on the reverse a short double cross, and some a long one, and all of them hexagonal stars. With respect to the heads, it may be observed, that several of the later coins of William bear the head also regarding the left, as do some of the coins of Alexander II. with the long double cross on the reverse, and crown fleury on the obverse, although neither Snelling or Cardonnel have published any of the latter. The crown of pearls is to be found on all the later coins of William, and a few of those attributed to Alexander II. one of which is given by Snelling, Pl. I. No. 17. The evidence, however, afforded by the obverses of these coins, is by no means so strong as that which their reverses present; for the mullets do not occur on those of William, which are supposed to be his earliest, whilst they are found on his later, and on all the Scottish coins, from William to Robert III.; neither are they found on any English coins, except one of Stephen's, nor are they found on those ancient pennies published by Snelling in his Plate of coins of the Isle of Man, and which are supposed by many to be Scottish. It may indeed be objected, that coins bearing mullets have been attributed to David I.; and, if such should be discovered, I admit the objection would be well founded, but I have neither seen or heard of any such coins, except that published by Anderson and Snelling, which has been considered, as I have no doubt it is, a blundered coin of William. But to return to the coins of Alexander, the form of the cross on the reverse also seems to assign them a period later than that of William; for the short double cross on No. 1, Snelling, resembles that on the later coins of William; but, except in length, it bears a nearer resemblance to the long double cross on those of Alexander II. inasmuch as the bars of the cross on Wil liam's coins intersect each other. The [Oct. long cross on No. 2, Snelling, is exactly similar to those of Alexander, II. nor is there any probability that this cross was used on Scotish coins before the time of William, and as there is scarcely any difference between Nos. 1 and 2, except in the cross, I think it can hardly be contended that they belong to different princes. Considering, then, all the coins bearing the name of Alexander, to belong to Alexander II. or III. let us examine those with the double cross, which have been generally attributed to Alexander II; of these, four distinct varieties are found, which were probably minted in the order I shall name them. The first bears a rude head to the left, and a short double cross on the reverse. The 2d differs from the former only in bearing a long double cross on the reverse; these two varieties have been, as before observed, attributed to Alexander I. The 3d class has on the obverse a head to the left, with a crown fleury and a long sceptre, surmounted with a cross; this kind, although not uncommon, has not been noticed either by Snelling or Cardonnel. The 4th bears the head to the right, with a long sceptre and crown fleury. No. 17 of Snelling also probably belongs to this class, although from the head being rude, and without the crown fleury, one might be inclined to place it after the 2d class. The only towns and moneyers I have been able to discover on these coins, are Tomas of Annan, Johan, Walter, Robert, and Willem of Berwick, Adam of Roxburgh, Alexander of Edinburgh, Renaud, and Walter of Perth, and Nicol on one of the 3d class, in the collection of Mr. Leybourn. The name of the town is defaced, but seems to be ED for Edinburgh. Another also of the 3d class, in my collection, bears on the reverse 104ÓN....KE, and does not seem to belong to any of the above towns. ALEXANDER III. The only coins attributed to this King, are those which bear on the reverse a long single cross. This type seems to have been adopted from the English coins of Edw. I. 1272, but as Alexander III. began to reign in 1249, it is scarcely to be supposed that in these 23 years he did not coin money. Snelling was clearly of this opinion, and supposed that many of those attributed to Alexander II. belonged to Alexander III. but considered that there was 1828.] Coins of Kings of Scotland. no means of distinguishing them. It is indeed possible that all those bearing a head regarding the right with a crown, and a long double cross on the reverse, belong to Alexander III; but I am more inclined to suppose the distinction to lie in the form of the letter A in the word Alexander, which on some of this class, and on all those of the 3d class of Alexander the Second's coins, is like H, whilst on those of a more modern appearance, as well as on those of Alexander III. with the single cross, the form is A. This dif ference does not appear to arise from the coins being minted at different towns, for I have in my own possession two of these coins struck at Berwick, which bear the A of these two different forms, although it must I think be admitted, that some of those with the long double cross belong to Alexander III. Perhaps the old mode of classification is still advisable, as we cannot tell when the change of letter was introduced. Of those of Alexander IH1. with the single cross, five varieties occur; one of them bears a French inscription on the reverse, but the other four differ only in the stars or pierced mullets on the reverse. One variety having pierced mullets of five points, another those of six points, another stars or close mullets of six points, and another two pierced mullets of six, and two stars of seven points. JOHN BALIOL. The varieties of this King's money are of a very trifling nature. Those with Rex Scot. bear some of them pierced mullets of five, and some of six points, the former bearing a young head, and the latter an old one; and on some, perhaps all of the latter, the sceptre has two small pearls about the centre; others bear two pierced mullets of five, and two stars of five points. Those struck at St. Andrew's bear two pierced mullets of five, and two of six points. ROBERT I. The weight of this prince's penny was, I believe, 21 grains; this Snelling and Cardonnel admit should have been the weight according to the standard of 21 pennies to the oz.; but they say that none are found which exceed 18 grains, and few 17, and as the first pennies of Robert II. should, if perfect, weigh 16 grs. it would be impossible to distinguish them by the criterion of weight. That the original 307 weight, however, of Robert the First's penny was 21 grs., I have no doubt whatever; for in Mr. Leybourn's collection is one in a perfect state of preservation, which weighs 21 grs.; but the margin outside the legend is so broad, that three or four grains might be well clipped from it, without injuring the appearance of the coin, and in the same collection is another, exactly resembling the former, which weighs, although nearly as well preserved, only 16 grs.; it is, however, clipped as far as the legend, and originally I believe weighed as much as the former. These two coins were found lately along with a large quantity of English and Scotch coins, none of them later than the time of Edward II. which is a strong proof that they both belong to Robert 1. The very broad margin of the largest, which admits of much clipping without injuring the appearance of the coin, accounts most satisfactorily for the light weight to which most of the coins of Robert I. have been reduced; but as they are generally reduced by these means to nearly the standard of those of Robert II. which probably afforded no such margin, it will be necessary for us to look for some more satisfactory mode of distinguishing the small coins of these two princes, than we can derive from their weights. Two legends occur on the reverses of the small coins of Robert I. and II.; the first is Scotorum Rex, and the second the name of the place of mintage; the former is found on all the coins of Alexander III., at least those commonly ascribed to him, and which are his latest, and also on most of those of John Baliol, whilst the name of the place of mintage is found on most of the coins of David; the former legend therefore was more likely to have been used by Robert I. and the latter by Robert II. The sceptre also on these coins may afford us some evidence; on several of them one or two pearls are found about the centre of the sceptre ; this peculiarity we meet with on those in Mr. Leybourn's collection, and often on the coins of Alexander III. and John Baliol, but never on the coins of David and his successors; this mark, therefore, whenever it is found, is, I think, a strong proof that the coin belongs to Robert I.; and there is another mark on the sceptre of others of these coins, which is nearly as strong evidence that the coins possessing it 308 History of the Gunpowder Plot. belong to Robert II. This is a small cross at the bottom or handle of the sceptre, and is found on some of the coins of David, and all the groats and half-groats of Robert II. I believe it will be found that these two marks never occur on the same coin; whenever, therefore, we meet with either of them on any of the small coins of these two Roberts, it will, I think, be one of the surest modes of appropriating them. The halfpence bearing on the reverse two mullets, and the legend Scotorum Rex, I think it extremely probable belong to Robert I., and those bearing four mullets, struck at Edinburgh, to Robert II; as those of David struck at that city bear only two, and it is probable those with four were minted afterwards. The application of the above rules will, I think, assign all those with Rex Scotorum to Robert I., and those bearing the name of the place of mintage to Robert II.; but I have not seen a sufficient number of coins or drawings to warrant me in giving a decisive opinion on this point. DAVID II. I have not been able to discover any coins of this King which are not published by Cardonnel, Pl. 2. On a groat in my possession, struck at Edinburgh, there is a small cross in one of the quarters of the reverse, under the V in Edinburgh; and the small cross on the handle of the sceptre is wanting; and-in Mr. Leybourn's collection is a fine groat, which bears a large mullet of five points after the word Scotorum. ROBERT II. On the groats and half-groats of this prince, the only places of mintage which occur are Edinburgh, Perth, and Dun-. dee; on the groats of Dundee, and some of those of Edinburgh, the letter B is found behind the King's head, the signification of which has been the subject of much controversy. The opinion of Bishop Nicholson and others, that this letter was not intended to denote either the name Bruce, or that of the moneyer, seems highly probable; but I have never met with any plausible conjecture as to its real signification; perhaps it was the initial of the words burnt silver, which are found in many of the Acts of Parliament of those times, and which signified refined silver, or it may have been a mint mark. It is rather singular that Snelling takes no notice of this letter, which he has not even published on his coins. ROBERT III. [Oct. I have not discovered any of this prince's coins which are not published by Cardonnel, Pl. 3 and 4. In my next letter I shall offer remarks on the coins of the James's. Yours, &c. JOHN LINDSAY. MR. URBAN, Oct. 11. my cellar, inserted in your MaN letter respecting the Powder gazine for September 1825, I had mentioned it as a probable circumstance that the letter which occasioned the discovery of the plot might have been written by Mrs. Habington, the sister of Lord Monteagle, and wife of Mr. Habington, of Henlip, Worcestershire, at whose house some of the conspirators had met. Since that time, I have obtained decisive evidence of the fact. A small pamphlet, in 4to. entitled, "The History of the Powder Treason, with a Vindication of the Proceedings and Matters relating thereunto from the exceptions made against it, and more particularly of late years by the Authour of the Catholic Apologye. To which is added a Parallel, 'betwixt that and the present Popish Plot," 4to. Lond. 1681, I have seen; and a copy of it is (I find from the Catalogue in two volumes, folio, printed in 1787. under the article Plot) among the printed books in the British Museum, The book is an anonymous publication; but some person, through whose hands the copy which I saw had passed, had written in manuscript the words "by Gilbert Burnett, D.D." and had altered the date 1681 to 1680, 30 Nov. This probably was the date of the former edition; for the preface to the reader speaks of this as a reprint. The book is divided into two tracts, the first entitled The History, the other The Vindication; and, in the former of these, p. 19, is the following passage: "But the wary Jesuit [meaning Garnet] provided for his own safety, and sending Greenwel to them for their assistance and direction, he himself retreated to Hall at Mr. Habington's house, at Hinlip in Worcestershire, where Hall had found a safe retreat for sixteen years together, as an author of theirs informs us, Heu Meri Historia Missionis Anglicana, p. 333. This was a place of great reception; and, as much of the Plot was there hatch'd, so it was from thence that it came to be prevented. For Mrs. Habington was sister to the Lord Monteagle, and so being solicitous for her bro 1828.] Bell Savage Inn; and St. Peter le Poor. ther, whom she had reason to believe would then be at the Parliament, she writ the abovesaid letter to him, to give him so much notice of the danger as might warn him to provide for his own safety, but not so much (as she apprehended) as might discover it. From this relation betwixt the two families, it was that Mr. Habington alone, of all the conspirators, after sentence, had his life given him. This account Mr. Habington himself (who was alive about 1645) gave to a worthy person still in being. There they lay concealed for some time, but at the last were discovered to be in that place by Littleton, one of the conspirators, as the same author relates, p. 814, who further saith, that though the help of carpenters and bricklayers were used, yet they were many days before they could find them out; being in a vault, the way to which was in an upper room through the half piece before the hearth, whose wooden border was made like a trap door, to pluck up and down, and then the bricks were laid in their courses and order again, as we are told by an author of our own.' Fowlis's Romish Treasons, p. 698. "From whence these authors had this account of the place of their concealment, I know not, but that they are mistaken I am very well assured from the aforesaid relator, to whom Mr. Habington gave this ensuing relation; viz. that for some time after the Plot was discovered, and others apprehended, there was no notice taken of him, so that he began to think himself secure. But one night on the sudden his house was beset, and he called for by the Sheriff, who as soon as he came down, told him that he was come by special order of Council to search his house. Mr. Habington told him that he was freely welcome, and caused lights immediately to be brought. They went from room to room, and about eleven of the clock at noon had finished, and found nothing. The Sheriff then being come into the parlour, said to Mr. Habinton, Cousin, I am heartily glad that I am disappointed; and so they drunk a glass of wine, and were taking leave, Mr. Habington accompanying the Sheriff to the door. But Francis Dingly, of Charlton, Captain of the County Horse, staying a little behind, struck his hand against the wainscot over the chimney, and finding it to be hollow, called the company in, and forthwith breaking it down, found there what they searched for. "Hence they were brought to London, and committed to the Tower." I observe that in my former letter, p. 210, there is a mistake in a reference, as it is there said that Percy's house stood on the spot R in the plan. It should be the spot Q, though a part of it might have extended over the spot R. And p. 209, there is a misprint of 309 F for J, between I and K in the re- Mr. URBAN, Oct. 12. REAT doubt has been entertained Gue to the etymology of the Bell Savage Inn on Ludgate Hill; but the point may be easily settled on decisive authority. Among the Close Rolls in the Tower, 31 Hen. VI. is a grant from John Frenshe, eldest son of John Frenshe, gentleman, formerly citizen and goldsmith of London, to Joanna Frensh, widow, his mother, for the term of her life, of the tenement called Savage's Inn, otherwise called the Bell on the Hoop, in the parish of St. Bride, Fleet-street. The house no doubt at one time belonged to the family of Savage, and was from that circumstance called Savage's Inn, as Lincoln's Inn was so called because it once belonged to the Bishop of Lincoln. Another etymology has also been doubtful, and that is St. Peter le Poor, the name of a parish in London, where Broad-street and the Excise Office stand. In the Romish Calendar of Saints, there are several saints of the name of St. Peter; and amongst them and St. Peter the Hermit, as the latter the principal are St. Peter the Apostle is represented as following the life of a hermit in the utmost poverty. No doubt St. Peter le Poor is St. Peter the Hermit, and the appellation was given him to distinguish him from the Apostle. Yours, &c. J. S. H. TH Mr. URBAN, Oct. 14. THE restoration of the magnificent sepulchral monument of Bishop Waynflete, in Winchester Cathedral, has lately been undertaken and com pleted, and the workmen have left it with scarcely less than its original per fection and beauty. It was severely mutilated during the late extensive al terations in the interior of the Cathe dral. In particular the iron bars were removed from the compartments of the screen, which the original architect had thus judiciously strengthened, and which, with this addition, secured the interior from improper intrusion. This needless operation required immense labour, and it was not effected without severe injury to the monument, as the bars passed quite through the mullions and pillars, and were of the hardest wrought iron. Certainly this restitution was not less necessary than that of 310 Restoration of Bp. Waynflete's Monument. the clustered turret of the canopy, de molished by an accident which it was found had considerably weakened the adjoining members of the structure. These and the various injuries of time and mischief are now redeemed; the dust which had for ages encumbered the delicate carved work, removed; and many of the shafts and pinnacles composing the splendid canopy, are restored from insecurity to firmness. Though this beautiful monument is too well-known to require a particular description, I may briefly remark that it occupies the entire space of one of the arches in that part of the Cathedral built by Bishop Godfrey de Lucy, and consists of open screens separated and supported by eight lofty pillars, which uphold the canopy, of a pyramidical form, to suit the shape of the vaulted aile. The utmost care and labour were bestowed on the design and construction of this admirable monument; but the skill of the architect, and the ability of the mason, seem to have been chiefly devoted to the canopy, the exquisite delicacy and merit of which cannot surely be surpassed. It is composed of eighteen single and four double turrets, storied and united, and surrounded by almost innumerable shafts and pinnacles of various sizes, from the centres of which rise the masterpinnacle rich in crockets. The effects of age and violence on this part of the delicate fabric were very numerous. One hundred and nine pinnacles and shafts, thirty finials and crockets of various kinds, and other, minute ornaments, have supplied the deficiencies. Were insecure, owing to the use of wooden pegs instead of brass wire, with which the whole are now fastened. Stone of several qualities was used in the construction of the monument, but the greater part is supposed to have been brought from Beere in Devonshire. The repairs have been made with Painswick and Farley Down stone, and the whole brought to an uniform and beautiful colour. The effigy survived the Reformation unhurt, and there is reason to believe that, excepting the removal of the statues from the niches, no other injury was done to the monument. But the "rebel army under Sir Wm. Waller, partly incited by the zeal of the College in the Royal cause, defaced among various other outrages the tomb of the [Oct. prelate, the beauty and decorations of which increased the savage efforts of the soldiery to spoil it*" After this violence, the figure of the Bishop, which alone seems to have suffered, was clumsily repaired with stone or putty, and coarsely painted in imitation of the original colours which concealed the material, which is stone, though supposed by Dr. Chandler to be polished marble, or alabaster, like Wykeham'st. The unsightly features have been replaced by others authorised both by existing remains, and approved portraits of Bishop Waynflete, and the costume re-painted and re-gilt in the colours in which it has always appeared. The inscription on brass round the verge of the tomb, was torn away, and the altar table entirely destroyed. This interesting restoration was entrusted by the Society of Magdalene College, Oxford, to Mr. Buckler, sen. under whose direction the work has been accomplished; and it may be added, that the various repairs were undertaken and executed by Mr. Stobbes, the able superintendent of the business of the late Mr. James Cundy, of Belgrave Wharf, Pimlico. Bishop Waynflete's is now the most perfect monument in the Cathedral, and it is hoped that neither through accident nor the ignorance of the mischievous, it will again be deprived of any of its appropriate and exquisite enrichments. Mr. URBAN, AN OLD Observer. Sept. 29. Thave been in progress in the magHE very extensive repairs which nificent Cathedral of Winchester during the last sixteen years, have been repeatedly noticed in your Magazine, in some instances but casually, in others incorrectly. As they are now brought to a conclusion, and the Church has attained in consequence a degree of splendour almost unknown to a Prowill not, I trust, be unacceptable to testant Cathedral, an additional notice your antiquarian friends. So early as 1819, one of your Correspondents, who styled himself "a • Chandler's Life of Waynflete, p. 289. + P. 290. See vol. LXXXIX. pt. ii. pp. 29, 133, 807; xcvII. pt. ii. pp. 111, 194, 411, 590 ; xcvi. pt. i. p. 194. |