403 Money and Moneyers. 



tine's were all engaged in coining in the City of Canterbury at 

 the same time, and nnder royal ordinances. At the time, 

 of the compilation of Domesday Booh, and long subsequently, the 

 king and the respective bishops of Norwich, Hereford, etc., 

 minted at the same time in those cities, and this practice of 

 coining, by prelates and other favourite subjects did not cease 

 and determine until the middle of the sixteenth century. It 

 further appears probable that in the same early times the king, 

 archbishop, or abbot had several distinct mints in the same 

 city at the same time. In Athelstan's Mint Ordinance, in the 

 Anglo-Saxon Records, and in Domesday Booh it is particularly 

 notified, in almost every instance, how many minters, or 

 monetarii there shall be in each place, or under each person 

 privileged to mint. For instance, Athelstan's chief ordinance 

 runs that at Canterbury there shall be seven minters, four for 

 the king, two for the archbishop, and one for the abbot, and 

 so on for other places. Now, that each minter had his own 

 die, which, with a hammer, a pair of shears, and a balance, 

 constituted the apparatus of a mint, is very nearly demon- 

 strated by a variety of writs and records in which the monetarii 

 and cuneii, or dies, agree in number. The connection between 

 monetarius and cuneus is rendered still more obvious by notic- 

 ing that, soon after the date of Domesday Booh, the custom 

 of specifying the number of monetarii in any place was super- 

 seded by specifying only the number of cuneii. 



That the privilege of having one die did not involve the 

 right of having another, is also tolerably certain. Those who 

 were permitted to coin pence were not justified in coining 

 halfpence, and vice versa. Enough has been said, probably, to 

 prove the fact that mints existed at the periods of which we 

 speak in various towns, and that frequently there were two or 

 three mints in the same town. In all these the monetarii were 

 held responsible for the character of the coin produced at their 

 particular mints, and heavy and peculiar punishments were 

 awarded to those who ventured to abuse their trust, and debase 

 the coinage. 



Coming to a much later period, that of King Edward VI., 

 we find in one of his letters-patent, that he and his father had 

 " erected, as well within our Tower of London as within divers 

 other places of our realmes of England and Ireland, sundry 

 myntes to be emplo} 7 ed, and ordered in such sorte and forme 

 as is contained in certain several indentures." On the 10th of 

 October, 1550, the same king in his journal, now extant in the 

 British Museum, speaks of " York, Master of one of the 

 myntes in the Tower;" and on the 21st of September, 1551, 

 speaks not only of ' ' York's mint," but also of " Throgmorton's 

 rnynte in the Tower." Again, in the year 1553, we find that 



