251 



York during the earlier part of the tenth century, and there 

 seems little doubt that they were the production of the archie- 

 piscopal mint. Mr. Ruding observes that " they were probably 

 coined by the authority of the see, although the inscriptions only 

 signify that they were of this mint, without specifying the person 

 by whose order they were struck."^ Soon after the accession of 

 JEthelstan in the year 925, laws were made for the regulation 

 of mints, by which the coining of money that did not bear the 

 name and effigies of the sovereign was forbidden, and it is said 

 that the same laws prohibited any other ecclesiastical mints from 

 being worked than those of Canterbury and Rochester. "We 

 therefore cannot be surprised that no Anglo-saxon coin of later 

 date has hitherto appeared, bearing the name or other distin- 

 guishing mark or badge of an archbishop of York. 



At the commencement of the Norman sera the York archiepis- 

 copal mint was undoubtedly in operation. Thomas, the nephew 

 of the Conqueror, who was archbishop of York from the year 1070 

 to the year 1101, *^was seized of his mints, which he enjoyed 

 not only during part of the reign of William I. but likewise in 

 the time of his son Rufus. "^ 



In the reign of King Henry I. archbishop Gerard, the 

 immediate successor of archbishop Thomas, was impleaded by 

 Odo, sheriff of Yorkshire, who disputed the prelate's right to 

 hold a court for the trial and punishment of his moneyers or 

 others committing offences in his own mint. The archbishop 

 took his cause before the king, and shewed his seizin and the 

 right of the church of Saint Peter of York, and the king's writ 

 was issued to the sheriff, allowing and confirming all the 

 privileges of the archbishop and the church.^ In other in- 

 stances the legality of the prelatical jurisdiction was contested, 

 but without success. It was probably some impediment offered 

 by the secular authorities to his exercise of the privilege of 

 coining, that occasioned archbishop Walter de Grey in the 2nd 



■were the same as No. 132. pi. 10. of Hawkins, which presents distinctly the legend 

 8CI PETRI on the obverse, and eborace on the reverse. 



» Annals, Vol. II. p. 234. = Ruding, Vol. II. p. 234. 



' Placita de quo warranto. Edw. I. p. 198. 



