Notes on the Coins believed to have been struck at Sandsfoot Castle and Weymouth in 1643-44.

By HENRY SYMONDS, F.S.A.

(Read 19th Feb., 1918.)

THE substance of this paper was communicated by the present writer to the Royal Numismatic Society in 1913 (Num. Chron., 4 Ser. XIII, 119). It is now reproduced and amplified with the assent of that Society as a contribution to the history of ne phase of the Civil War in Dorset.

It may be said at the outset that none of these "moneys of necessity," whether

struck at Sandsfoot or elsewhere in England, are known to have been issued by the Parliamentary authorities, but solely by the Royalists, for the sufficient reason that the Commons in August, 1642, had seized and were in full control of the royal mint in the Tower of London, which was able to supply all the currency demands of its new masters. Nevertheless, the King's opponents continued to use his portrait and titles until 1649, the year of his execution; and we therefore find two distinct classes of current moneys of equal intrinsic value, one issued by Parliament from the Tower, the other by Charles I. from various places throughout the

country, but mainly from his headquarters at Oxford, the mint being in New Inn Hall.

Unlike the case of Chester, where there is an extant resolution of 1645 authorising the conversion of a part of the corporation plate into coin for the city's needs, there is no documentary evidence in the municipal archives of Weymouth, as at present known to me, which would suggest the existence of a mint in that town or at Sandsfoot Castle. It is not improbable that the political complexion of the joint boroughs, which were anti-Royalist as a whole, explains the silence of such local records as are accessible. Be that as it may, we must consequently rely on inferences drawn from a study of the coins themselves. In this connexion I will cite a recent instance where the written word has established the attribution to Scarborough castle of a siege-coin which had been previously assigned to Colchester, without, I may add, any obvious reason for so doing. The point was made clear by the publication in 1917 of a contemporary narrative by the governor of Scarborough, who described the circumstances under which the coin in question, a stamped fragment of silver plate, was made. (Num., Chron. 4 Ser. XVIII, 122). So it is perhaps not unreasonable to hope that Dorset antiquaries may have the good fortune to discover some manuscript testimony which will confirm, and not upset, as in the Colchester case, the conclusions summarised in the following pages.

There are in existence a small number of half-crowns struck during this period which bear the letters SA. beneath the horse, the mint-mark* on the obverse being a fleur-de-lys

* A mint-mark, or privy-mark, is the sign placed on coins by the master-worker of the mint, so that responsibility could be brought home to him if the money was deficient in weight or fineness when tested at the ancient ceremony known as the Trial of the Pyx. Of course no such formal tests were held in the emergency mints of Charles I., but nevertheless a private sign was still engraved on the dies, and was often associated with the heraldry of the locality in which the coins were issued.

and on the reverse a helmet. The coin is described by Hawkins in his Silver Coins of England (3rd. ed.) among the half crowns which he regarded as " uncertain," in the geographical sense, and is drawn in his plates as Fig. 502. An example in the British Museum collection is illustrated on the accompanying plate as No. 3. The earlier attribution of this rare coin to a mint at Salisbury was first put forward by Mr. J. B. Bergne in 1848 (Num. Chron., XII., 58-62); but the reasons for that proposal were somewhat nebulous, being chiefly based upon a passing visit by Charles to Salisbury in October, 1644. I observe that Hawkins does not refer at all to this attribution, and that the British Museum Handbook mentions it only in very general terms, omissions which suggest that the respective editors doubted the accuracy of Mr. Bergne's allocation to the Wiltshire city.

The history of the Civil War in that county affords little, if any, support to the theory that the course of events was such as to render probable the establishment of a mint during a Royalist occupation. On the contrary, Sir Richard C. Hoare in his Modern Wiltshire (1843) tells us that "to the open and unprotected state of the city the inhabitants may perhaps ascribe their exemption from the miseries of a siege with which so many other places were visited." Skirmishes of a more or less serious character were plentiful enough; but there was no prolonged defence by the troops of either party during the course of the war. Nor does an examination of the coins furnish any link, as far as I can see, in the shape of a mint-mark derived from the charges on the armorial shield of the city, as was the case at Chester or Exeter or Worcester. Indeed, both the type and the fabric of all the examples are admittedly those of a coinage which has been identified with another town, viz., Weymouth. For these reasons it would appear that we must rely solely upon the presence of the letters SA. if we seek to connect these pieces with Sarum or Salisbury-a rather unsafe foundation upon which to build when other evidence is not forthcoming.

Under these circumstances I have ventured to offer what appears to be a more probable interpretation of the two letters, supported by collateral facts obtained from the coins in question; and I am able to say that up to the present time the adherents of the Salisbury theory have not assailed my alternative solution since its publication in 1913.

I will here recall the circumstance that the attribution to Weymouth of certain half-crowns showing a W. beneath. the horse was first made by the Rev. T. F. Dymock in 1856, cf. Num. Chron., N.S., Vol. I., p. 185. It is a matter of history that this Dorset town was occupied by the King's forces from a day in the first week in August, 1643, until June 17, 1644, a period of ten months or so, during which the facilities for landing reinforcements, and for maintaining a packet service with France, caused the place to be regarded as of huge consequence to his Majesty's affairs" (Dom. State Papers, Nov., 1643). In February, 1644-5, a portion of the town was recaptured by the Royalists; but this second occupation was so short-lived as to render it unlikely that any money was then struck.

Many members of the Field Club will be more or less familiar with the ruins of Sandsfoot Castle on the sea cliff nearly one mile south of Weymouth. This Tudor fortress was held for the King in 1643, and surrendered to his enemies in June, 1644, very shortly after the fall of the neighbouring town. As it was a royal castle, its governor had always been appointed by the Crown; and during the time when Charles's troops were in possession of Weymouth the respective garrisons were under one command. To Sandsfoot Castle I propose to assign the SA. half crowns,-relying for the most part upon the remarkable similarity between these coins and those of the same denomination with the letter W. beneath the horse. As an instance of this affinity in type and fabric I would mention that one of the SA. coins in the British Museum shows on the reverse the complete type of Weymouth No. 5 in Hawkins's list. The points of resemblance between the SA. and the W. coins are not confined to the

general type common to both classes, seeing that the mintmark helmet occurs on the reverses of each. This mark is not found, as far as I am aware, on any issues of the period other than those of Weymouth and the SA. group. For further details, such as the distinctive chain border round the shields, I must be content to refer to Hawkins, pp. 333, 337, and 489.

In the event of this new attribution being regarded as acceptable, the transfer from Salisbury to Sandsfoot would necessarily include some half-crowns and smaller. pieces of rude style and execution, which, although not bearing the letters SA., have been given to Salisbury on account of their resemblance to what may be described as the parent type, viz. Plate, No. 3. One of the most noticeable of this class is a half-crown showing a circular object beneath the horse which has been spoken of as a cannon ball; but the disk is almost certainly the result of an attempt to erase the SA. from the die, as, indeed, was suggested by Mr. Bergne in his paper already quoted. This coin, also in the national cabinet, bears as mint-marks a fleur de lys and a helmet on the obverse and reverse respectively (see Plate, No. 4), and is manifestly the work of the engraver who made the dies for the SA. pieces. It is to be observed that the half-crowns with the disk, or erasure, read regna instead of regno in the reverse legend.*

There is also a shilling (classified by Hawkins as No. 15 among those of uncertain mintage, but closely related in style to the Sandsfoot half-crowns) which exhibits a lys as

* Since this paper was read my friend Mr. F. A. Walters, F.S.A., has sent a rubbing of yet another half-crown, which from its general style should be assigned to the Weymouth-Sandsfoot group. The coin shows a boar's-head as mint mark on the reverse, and is apparently unpublished. This symbol probably has a topographical significance, but I cannot at present locate it. Mr. Walters's half. crown also shews the blundered regna in the legend which suggests a local association with No. 4 on the Plate.