AS you occasionally devote a few pages to the commemoration of feats of Archery, I send you herewith an account of the Richmond Society, which has now existed for one hundred and sixty years, and their records are in tolerable order and preservation. In the year 1673, Henry Calverley, of Eryholme, Esq., in the county of York, is said to have given the Silver Arrow to the Society of Archers, which is still in their custody, and rules and regulations were then agreed upon at Scorton for the regulation of " the shooting."

The first rule regulates the sum to be deposited; the second, that the place of shooting shall always be within six miles* of Eriholme," unless otherwise resolved by the majority. The third rule regulates the colours of the targets; the fourth, the distance to be at least "" eight score yards," and not nearer than sixty yards.

Fifth, he who first hits the gold to be captain, and shall" enjoy all the privilege due and belonging to that office during the year ensuing;" but he must bring the arrow to the next annual meeting, &c. The sixth regulates the manner of shooting. The seventh imposes a fine for swearing," for as much as the exercise of archery is lawful, laudable, healthful, and innocent, and to the end that God's holy name may not be dishonoured by any of that society, it is agreed and hereby declared, that if any one of them shall that day curse or swear in the hearing of any of that company, and the same proved before the captain and lieutenant, he shall forthwith pay down one shllling, and so proportionably for every oath," &c. for the use of the poor.

These rules have continued with little variation to the present day. A subscription is made amongst the members for a second prize, generally of a silver cup. And an account of the last "shooting," at Middleton-one-Row, will show how the prizes are awarded.

Five pairs of targets were set up, the distance between one shooting point and another being 102 yards; that is two yards being allowed for the stand, and 100 yards for the flight of the arrow. The outer circle was white,

*Extended to twenty miles, 1823.
GENT. MAG. VOL. IV.

the second black, the third blue, the fourth red, and the centre gold. The first prize, the silver arrow, was won by Mr. Crowe, by placing the first arrow in the gold, which entitles him to the custody of the arrow and to the honorary title of captain of archers for the year ensuing. The second prize. was the subscription silver cup, value about seventeen guineas this year, and he holds the rank of lieutenant, by placing the most centrical arrow in the gold, during the days of shooting. There is also a captain of numbers, a lieutenant of numbers, a lieutenant of the arrow, gained by placing the first arrow in the red; and last of all, the

66

spooney," by placing the last arrow in the white, by which he gained the ancient horn spoon, on which is inscribed "Risum teneatis, amici ?" X. Y.

The following is a list of officers from the first foundation to the present period, with the respective places of meeting:

A.D. Captains and Lieutenants. Places. 1673. H. Calverley, esq.;W.Wheatley,-Scorton 1674. Geo. Dobson; Geo. Dobson-Barton

1675. S.Birkbeck; {G. Dobson }-Eriholme

T. Allenson 1676. T. Dodsworth, esq.; S. Birkbeck-Croft 1677. John Dawson; S. Birkbeck -Croft 1678. Leo. Brakenbury; L. Squire-Melsonby 1679. John Murton; John Dawson-Melsonby 1680. Thos. Gyll; Loftus Squire -Melsonby 1681. N.Thompson; L. Brakenbury--Barton 1682.

1683. T. Garthorn; Nich.Cole, esq.-Eriholme 1684. P.Etherington; P.Etherington-Eriholme 1685. R. Wilkinson; R. Marshall-Eriholme 1686. R. Grimstone; John Sadler-Eriholme 1687. L. Brakenbury; P.Robinson--Melsonby 1688. R.Grimston; P. Etherington-Melsonby 1689. L. Brakenbury; J. Lawson -Melsonby 1690. L.Brakenbury; N.Thompson--Melsonby 1691. W. Garthorn; J. Pilkington-Melsonby 1692. R. Steadman; Geo. Hartley-Darlington 1693. Geo. Hartley; Geo. Trotter -Barton 1694. Geo. Hartley; Geo. Trotter -Eriholme 1695. M. Hartley; L. Brakenbury-Melsonby 1696. Marm. Hartley; Thos. Gyll --Barton 1697. Will. Raine; Will. Raine-Middleton Tyas 1698.

1699.

1700. M. Hartley; Thomas Gyll -Barton 1701.

1702. Rob. Eden, esq.; Wm. Raine-Darlington 1703. N. Thompson; G. Harland-Piercebridge 1704. N.Thompson; L. Brakenbury-Barton 1705. N.Thompson; N. Thompson-Barton 1706. Ant. Hammond; Ra. Lodge-Barton 1707. C. Bridgwater; J. Etherington-Hartforth 1708. Ro. Robinson; Ri.Wilson Hartforth 1709. Edw. Horner; N. Thompson-Richmond 1710. R. Hutchinson; } T.Thwaites--Richmond 1711. L. Brakenbury; G. Garnett -Richmond 1712. Mr.Hammond; Mr.Theobalds-Richmond 1713. Tho. Thwaites; Rich.Wilson-Hartforth 1714. J. Robinson; Edw. Horner -Richmond

Rd. Robinson;

2 I

1722. A. Milbanke, esq.; C.Routh, esq.-Richm. 1723. Edw. Bell; James White-Leeming Lane 1724. A. Milbanke, esq.; R. Robinson-Richm. 1725. R. Robinson; R. Robinson -Leeming L. 1726. C. J. Prissick; J. White -Richmond 1727. R. Robinson; W. Dobson 1728. Dr. Bell; R. Robinson

Yarm

-Croft

1729. W. Browne, esq.; Ja. Cooke,esq.-Croft 1730. W. Davill, jun.esq.; M. Wass, esq.-Richm. 1731. C.Readshaw,jr.; H. Nicholls,jr.--Richmo. 1732. Jas. White; Thos. Kelley Richmond 1733. Jos. Coates; W. Browne, esq.-Piercebr." 1734. Jos. Coates; Peter Marley -Richmond 1735. Jos.Coates; Thos. Thwaites-Richmond 1736. John Plumb; Thos. Kelley Richmond 1737. Peter Marley; P. Marley -Barton 1738. Rev.Mr.Theobalds; SirH.Smithson-P.bri, 1739. James White; Jos. Coates -Richmond 1740. Thos. Kelley; R. Seymour -Piercebri. 1741. Thos. Kelley; Thos. Kelley -Richmond 1742. Jos. Coates; Thos. Watson Richmond 1743. Jos.Coates; Rev.Mr.Theobald-Richmond 1744. R. Seymour; John Plume -Richmond 1745. SirH.Smithson;* C. Readshaw-Piercebr. 1746. Jos. Coates; John Plume -Stanwick 1747: R. Robinson; R. Seymour -Richmond 1748. J. Appleby; Thos. Kelley -Richmond

1749. Isaac Truman; Hon.T.Vane-Darlington 1750. John Bowyer, esq.; Hon.T.Vane-Darling. 1751. Jos. Appleby; Hon. T. Vane-Darlington 1752. J. Collier, jun.; J. Wright -Darlington 1753. M.Milbanke; Rev. Mr. Nicholson-Darl. 1754. Rev. -Nicholson; W.Chaytor, esq.-Scorton 1755. Mr. Jones; Mr. Robinson -Hurworth 1756. Robt. Hall; Robt. Davison -Richmond 1757. Thos. Kitching; T. Watson-Darlington Thos. Kelley; G. Rickaby

1758. John Wright; John Wright-Richmond 1759. Geo. Rickaby; Robt. Hall -Darlington 1760. Geo. Rickaby; Robt. Hall -Richmond 1761. Geo. Rickaby; Thos. Watson-Richmond 1762. G. Thompson; R. Hodgson -Richmond 1763. Robt. Hall; Geo. Rickaby -Richmond 1764. Thos. Kelley; Thos. Kelley -Darlington 1765. Thos. Watson; Thos. Kelley-Ferry Hill 1766. Robt. Hall; John Gainford -Darlington 1767. Thos. Raine; R. Jackson -Darlington 1768, James Portees; J. Gainford-Hunworth 1769. John Gainford; Robt. Hall -Darlington 1770. Robt. Hall; Thos. Watson -Richmond * Afterwards Duke of Northumberland.

A.D. Captains and Lieutenants.

1771. J. Gainford; Geo. Rickaby -Darlington 1772. Geo. Rickaby; J. Gainford -Richmond 1773. (Not shot for)

1774. (Not shot for)

1775. Thos. Kelley; Rob. Jackson-Richmond 1776. T. Kelley; Mr. Macfarlan -Richmond 1777. (Not shot for)

1778. Thos. Kelley; Rob. Jackson-Richmond 1779.

1780.

1781. Robt. Hall; Mr. Gordon -Darlington 1782. Robt. Hall; Hen. Wilson -Darlington 1783. James Wilson; Robt. Hall -Darlington 1784. Robt. Hall; Robt. Hall -Darlington 1785. Robt. Hall; Mr. Macfarlane-Darlington 1786. T.Watson; S. Hodgson, esq.-Darlington 1787. Thos. Watson;. J. Hayton-Darlington 1788. (No shooting) 1789. (Ditto)

1790. Mr. Macfarlan; Mr.Glenton-Richmond 1791. Mic. Basnet; Mr. Macfarlan-Richmond 1792. F. Thompson; Tho. Watson -Darlington 1793. John Hayton; T. Waistell -Darlington Jas. Glenton 1794. J. Glenton; Mr. Waistell}-Darlington 1795. Mr. Macfarlan; Mr. Glenton-Richmond 1796. Jas. Glenton; Jas. Wensley-Richmond 1797. T.Wycliffe, esq.; Geo. Marley-Richmond 1798. P. Macfarlan; P. Macfarlan-Richmond 1799. (Not won); James Wensley Richmond 1800. (No shooting for ten years)

1809. Rev.F.Blackburne; Mr.Eaton-Richmond 1810. F. Blackburne; Mr. Child -Richmond 1811. Paul Wilson; Mr. Stamper -Richmond 1812. Octavius Leefe; Geo. Croft -Richmond 1813. Mr.Dennison; J.C.Ibbetson-Richmond 1814. Thos. Foss; Mr. Dennison -Darlington 1815. J. C. Ibbetson; Geo. Croft -Richmond 1816. Fr. Newby; J. Peacock,M.D.-Richmond 1817. Will. Stamper; R. Wilson 1818. Thos. Gibson; J. Metcalfe 1819. Thos. Bowman; O. Leefe 1820. Isaac Fisher; Will. Gibbon 1821. George Croft; Rob. Wilson -Richmond 1822. (Disputed) -Richmond

Chr. Croft

1823. Isaac Fisher; Will. Kirkley -Scorton 1824. George Croft; Chr. Croft -Richmond 1825. Robt. Thompson; C. Croft 1826. Will. Kirkby; Will. Reed 1827. Thos. Bowman; Isa. Fisher 1828. Will. Kirkby; F. Horner 1829. Christ. Croft; {s. Fisher-Richmond 1830. Geo. Croft; Will. Kirkby 1831. Amb. Clement; I. Fisher 1832. Th. Smurthwaite; G. Croft 1833. W. H. Hardy; Is. Fisher 1834. Mr. Crowe; Mr. Leefe

-Middletonone-row

were struck. As, however, I do not coincide with him as to where the point of separation between the coins of William I. and II. should be placed, I think it right to lay before you and your learned readers my ideas on the subject.

Mr. Hawkins has justly observed, that the discovery of this hoard does not materially assist in correcting the appropriation of the coins of the Williams. I think, however, it has thrown some light on them, and this, combined with the elucidation which Mr., Haw

kins himself has afforded, will, I think, lead us to a more correct arrangement of these coins than has hitherto existed. As Mr. Hawkins's plate of the coins of the Williams contains all the principal varieties of type hitherto published of these coins, I shall confine my observations to the coins exhibited in it. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 are assigned by all writers to William I., and this appropriation can, I think, admit of no doubt.

No. 5 has also been always assigned to the Conqueror; but, although inclined to entertain the same opinion, I think that appropriation rather more doubtful than that of the four first numbers; the two sceptres have generally been considered as conclusive of the subject, but a possibility I think exists of these coins having been struck on occasion of Rufus' invasion of Normandy in 1090, in which he succeeded in conquering a great part of that duchy; and a better reason for assigning them to the Conqueror seems to me deducible from the propriety of placing them before No. 6, which from the stars appears to have been copied from the great seal of Rufus, and struck at the commencement of his reign.

I fully agree with Mr. Hawkins that these two coinages were successive, and that No. 5 was first struck; but I differ from him in their appropriation, as I think No. 5 was probably the last coinage of the Conqueror, and No. 6 the first of Rufus, and that all the succeeding numbers, including all those of the Pax type, also belong to Rufus.

Mr. Hawkins seems to consider, that inferiority of workmanship in a great degree decides the question of the appropriation of coins, to the Conqueror or his son Rufus. It strikes me otherwise; and that it is not probable that any immediate change in the character of engraving the dies, took place on the death of the Conqueror, or a cessation of coining. On the contrary, I should suppose that, as the succession of Rufus was left uncertain by his father, and the privilege of coinage was an attribute of royalty, Rufus would be likely to coin money as soon as he obtained the doubtful but coveted crown of England. And having varied his great seal from his father's, by the addition of two stars,

that the same variation would be extended to the coinage; and then it naturally follows that No. 6, the first coinage of Rufus, and executed by the engravers in the Mint at the Conqueror's death, will be similar in workmanship to his father's, though differing in type. With the gradual extinction of the Saxon engravers, whom the Normans found in the Mint, or their pupils and successors, together with the increased and progressive turbulence of the government of Rufus, and his necessities towards the close of his reign, we may suppose less attention was paid to the coinage, and probably, also, less money was struck. Yet, as the kingdom became drained of coin, to meet his wars, expeditions, and purchases of foreign territory, some coinage might be absolutely required for England. From want of education and practice, an inferior class of engravers would now occupy the Mints, producing a deteriorated and barbarous style of workmanship, in accordance with Nos. 17 and 18, given by Mr. Hawkins; and which, as that gentleman remarks, are clearly identified in style with the early coinages of Henry I. In my mind this establishes a natural chain of connection, by which No. 6 as decidedly belongs to Rufus as No. 18. And if so, as No. 6 is from the Beaworth hoard, I conjecture they are all the coins of Rufus.

The next coinage was, I think it probable, that of No. 11. Mr. Hawkins seems to think it possible it might have preceded No. 8; and a comparison of the moneyers found on these coins, with those on No. 6, will afford strong evidence that both these types, 6 and 11 preceded that of Nos. 9 and 10. The moneyers Anderbod on Winc. and Anspuc on Linc. are found on Nos. 6 and 11, and the former on the coins of the Confessor and Harold; but neither of these names appears on the numerous coins of the type of Nos. 9 and 10, struck at Winchester and Lincoln, of which 1587 of the former town and 171 of the latter, were found at Beaworth; to which strong evidence we may add, that the letters of the word Taunton, which appear on Nos. 8, 9, and 10, are always TAN, but on Nos. 6 and 11 TANV.

The next coinage was, I think, that of the Paxs type with full face, Nos. 9

and 10 constituting the great part of the hoard found at Beaworth; and the reason I am induced to place these before Nos. 7 and 8 is, that the latter appear more connected with Nos. 12 and 13, which are evidently coins of a later date than those we have already considered.

The coinage which followed Nos. 9 and 10 was probably No. 8, as it also bears the word Paxs. And here I shall offer a few observations on that much disputed word. The word Pacx occurs on the coins of Cnut and the Confessor; Pax on those of Harold II. and Henry I., and Paxs on those of the Williams; the two former words differing only in the spelling, must simply have denoted Peace, and the coins bearing them been struck at some period of these respective reigns applicable to that word; what that period was, it is not in this place our purpose to inquire, it having, as I think will be admitted, no reference whatever to the event denoted by the word Paxs on the coins of the Williams. This latter word differs from the others in the letter s forming the termination, and I think it will also be admitted that this letter must have had some peculiar signification.

Some of our most eminent antiquaries have offered conjectures as to this word, but generally coupled with strong doubts as to their propriety, whilst by others no explanation has been even attempted; in my opinion, however, the history of the Williams supplies us with two events to which the word Paxs would most happily apply. The first is the peace with the Scotch in 1072, and the second that with the same nation in 1091, and I am strongly of opinion that the latter was the event referred to, both from the probability of the coins bearing this word belonging to Rufus, and also from the importance attached to this treaty at the time, which Rufus considered so great, that he received Prince Edgar, who was employed in the negociation, into favour, and allowed him to return into England.

The next coinage must, I think, have been No. 7, as it seems to form a connecting link between No. 8 and No. 12, which I think was the next coin struck, and which Mr. Hawkins places at the head of the coins of Rufus, but which, according to my arrangement, was

more probably struck about the middle of his reign.

The six numbers which follow require no observations; they are evidently the last coins of the Williams, and I entirely agree with Mr. Hawkins as to their arrangement.

From these observations, therefore, it will be perceived, that the principal difference between my arrangement of these coins and that of Mr. Hawkins, is in the point of separation of the two reigns, Mr. Hawkins placing it between Nos. 11 and 12, and I between Nos. 5 and 6; and the order in which I place them is as follows:

Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to the Conqueror. Nos. 6, 11, 9, 10, 8, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 to Rufus.

The probability that the quantity of money coined by William I. must have far exceeded that struck by Rufus, cannot, I think, be considered as disturbed by this system; if we reflect that, previous to the accidental discovery of this hoard, the coins of the first five numbers were probably as numerous as those of the last thirteen put together; that Rufus having used a greater number of types, is no proof of his having coined more money, and that the great numbers of the coins of any king which have descended to us, has arisen more from the accidental discovery of some large hoards than from the extent of his coinage.

Two coins, by some attributed to the Williams, remain to be noticed; they are published in Ruding, Supplement, part ii. Nos. 1 and 2, bearing the legends Luillem Du. O. & Willelmus O.

These coins are now generally considered as not belonging to either of the Williams, but considerable doubt still seems to exist as to their appropriation. In the Gentleman's Magazine for August 1827, I have offered some remarks on them, tending to show that they probably belonged to William, eldest son to Henry I., and I still adhere to that opinion. Mr. Hawkins conjectures them to belong to William, second son of Stephen, from the circumstance of Eustace, Stephen's eldest son, having coined money, and a few of Stephen's coins being found with them; but a comparison of No. 1 with No. 5 in the same plate, belonging to Henry 1., which,

together with several other coins of that prince, was found along with it, and the circumstance of No. 2 being, as Mr. Hawkins mentions, quite identical as to type and workmanship with a half coin on which the name of Henry appears, leaves, I think, no doubt that these coins are connected with Henry I. and not with Stephen.

Mr. Hawkins says, could it be absolutely decided whether these coins belong to Henry I. or Il. it would not be difficult to assign the coins in question. There can be however, I think, little doubt that No. 5 belongs to Henry I.; but, even admitting that it belonged to Henry II. 1 should be more inclined to suppose the two coins in question to belong to his eldest son William, who died an infant, in the commencement of his father's reign, than to Stephen's son William, as the strong resemblance of No. 1 to No. 5 renders it in my mind nearly certain that William was the son of Henry.

Having thus given my ideas as to the arrangement of these coins, it only remains for me to offer a few observations on the circumstance of such a number of moneyers and mints being found on those discovered at Beaworth, whilst the coins themselves are almost all of one type, and from their state of preservation could never have been in circulation.

A brother collector of mine has suggested to me, that this hoard most probably was either a part or the whole of the king's seniorage, from the different mints, of one coinage. And that it would also indicate that the engravers were limited in a great measure to one type, for the same period. From which circumstance another question may arise, whether the dies were not engraved at the seat of government, at Winchester or London, and sent to the other different mints, leaving the local engravers or moneyers, to insert their names and residences, by which they were made ac

countable to the king for the goodness of the coins? And supposing this hoard was the king's seniorage, we may presume that the best struck and weightiest coins would be selected by the moneyers for their own credit and safety.

To this opinion I fully subscribe, as it seems to afford the only plausible solution hitherto offered on this subject.

If we suppose it to be, as some writers have conjectured, the produce of a tax, we must suppose the taxes to be paid into the different mints, the money re-coined, and the amount transmitted to the royal treasury, a mode of proceeding of which history does not furnish us with any account; or we must suppose the merchants, previous to paying their taxes, to have brought, as they often did, their bullion and foreign coins to the mints, and having converted them into current coin of the realm, to have transmitted them to the treasury; but in this case it would be extremely improbable that in a general payment of taxes no mixture of coins already in circulation should be found.

There is another supposition which at first sight may appear probable, that a general re-coinage having taken place, and the amount transmitted to the king's treasury, the hoard in question consisted of a portion taken from the whole; but if this was the case, unless we suppose the entire was shaken together as much as possible, it is scarcely probable that a portion of 6 or 7,000 pieces should have contained, as it did, specimens of, with scarcely one exception, every mint and perhaps every moneyer in the kingdom.

If, however, we adopt the idea that it was the amount of the king's seignorage, we have no improbability to encounter; but the hoard, from its amount and variety of mints and moneyers, was exactly such as we might expect to find the produce of the king's seignorage on one coinage. Your's, &c.

JOHN LINDSAY.

Salisbury, Aug. 5.