VI.—Royal Sergeants-at-Arms and the Royal Maces

H. D. W. Sitwell

doi:10.1017/S0261340900003775

VI.—Royal Sergeants-at-Arms and the Royal Maces

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2011

H. D. W. Sitwell

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

The local government in this country and most countries in Europe is carried out by Corporations of Cities and Boroughs, the head of which is a mayor or corresponding official. One of the most important duties of local government is the preservation of law and order, and for this purpose, in former times, the mayor was usually authorized by charter to enlist men or ‘sergeants’ as they were called, later to be called ‘sergeants-at-mace’. These men were armed with a mace which was both a weapon and a staff of office. Originally a weapon only, it was later replaced by a ceremonial equivalent. There was usually also, from the fourteenth century and probably earlier, a ‘Great’ or mayor's mace, carried by the mace-bearer, usually a sergeant, which represented the authority of the mayor and was carried before him on formal occasions. Both of these types of mace exist in their ceremonial form today and are carried on formal occasions, although the sergeant's former duties have to a great extent now been taken over by the police. The sergeant's maces are small, averaging about one pound: the mayor's are larger, usually about ten pounds. The powers of these sergeants were, of course, limited to within the boundary of the city or borough to which they belonged.

Type: Research Article
Information: Archaeologia , Volume 102 , 1969 , pp. 203 - 250

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900003775 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 203 note 1} According to his patent, when there is no Parliament he is available for attendance on the sovereign.

^{page 203 note 2} Both when he acts as Speaker in the House of Lords, and outside; this Sergeant-at-Arms is sometimes called Sergeant-at-Arms to the House of Lords.

^{page 204 note 1} St. John Hope 1895, vol. i, Introduction.

^{page 204 note 2} Ibid., pp. xxiv to xxix.

^{page 204 note 3} Planché 1876, pp. 345–7.

^{page 204 note 4} St. John Hope 1895, vol. i, pp. xlvi–li.

^{page 204 note 5} Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 590–2.

^{page 204 note 6} Jones, E. Alfred, The Old Royal Plate in the Tower of London (London 1908), pp. xxx–xxxii and 41–9Google Scholar.

^{page 204 note 7} Sir Younghusband, George, The Jewel House (London, 1921)’ p. 69Google Scholar. Weight is, of course, avoirdupois.

^{page 204 note 8} Lieut.-Col. Thorne, Peter, The Mace in the House of Commons (House of Commons Library Document No. 3: H.M. Stationery Office 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 1} Op. cit., vol. i, p. xxiv.

^{page 205 note 2} A. R. Myers, The Household of Edward IV, the Black Book and the Ordinance of 1478 (Manchester University Press), p. 247, note 214. The author also gives excerpts from earlier ordinances.

^{page 205 note 3} Ibid., p. 131.

^{page 206 note 1} Har. 297, p. 254. This document is transcribed in full at Appendix A.

^{page 206 note 2} Selden, John, Titles of Honour (London, 1614, 3rd ed. 1672)Google Scholar, Part II, Ch. V: Esquires.

^{page 206 note 3} pettus 1680, Ch. XIX.

^{page 207 note 1} Cal. Pat. Rolls 1416.

^{page 207 note 2} St. John Hope 1895, vol. i, p. xxvi.

^{page 207 note 3} Planché 1876, p. 346.

^{page 208 note 1} Planché 1876, pl. facing p. 294.

^{page 208 note 2} LC. 5–32 to 38.

^{page 208 note 3} LC. 9–52 to 102.

^{page 208 note 4} Mostly LC. 2 series, coronations, funerals, etc.: special accounts.

^{page 208 note 5} Stowe 555.

^{page 209 note 1} Collins, A. Jefferies, Jewels and Plate of Queen Elizabeth I (British Museum, 1955)Google Scholar; it includes a complete transcript of Stowe 555. The entry of the mace is No. 1373, p. 538. From the brief description it does not appear to have been a Royal mace at all; it had no crown. Collins says it was sent to the Mint in 1600.

^{page 209 note 2} Letters and Papers Henry VIII, vol. xviii, Part I, Grant No. 346 records Denization of Benedict Brune ‘Sergeant of the Trumpets, a native of Pavia in the Emperors Dominions’, in 1543.

^{page 209 note 3} This mace cannot be the one mentioned by Collins, recorded in Stowe 555, which was said to weigh 43 oz.

^{page 210 note 1} Sergeants-at-Arms were not, apparently, always appointed by Letters Patent, some being appointed by a Lord Chamberlain's Warrant. This appears to have made no difference to their status and authority.

^{page 210 note 2} A ‘King's’ Sergeant-at-Arms had now become one who attended the King, the others being called ‘Lord Chancellor's, etc.’ Sergeant-at-Arms. In the same way, there is later mention of the ‘Lord Chancellor's, etc.’ mace. Both terms are technically incorrect.

^{page 211 note 1} Guillim, John, Display of Heraldrie (London, 1611)Google Scholar, Sect. IV, Ch. Ill, pp. 194 and 195. Guillim illustrates this definition with a small sketch of a mace as an heraldic charge. This shows a mace with crown, etc., but with a baluster stem, presumably a feature of at least some of the Royal maces at the time; an interesting point, as this form of stem was used in some civic great maces in the first half of the eighteenth century, the present great mace of the City of London being of this type, though the Royal maces did not use it. St. John Hope thought Pyne, a well known mace maker at this time, had invented it (see St. John Hope 1895, vol. i, p. liv) but was evidently wrong.

^{page 211 note 1} Prynne, William, Brevia Parliamentaria Redivivus (London, 1684)Google Scholar, Sect. X, Precedent XXIV.

^{page 212 note 1} William Prynne, op. cit., Sect. X, Precedent XV, pp. 778 and 779 of 18 Eliz. and Precedent XVIII, pp. 800–2 temp. James I.

^{page 212 note 2} Guillim (op. cit. in p. 210, n. 3) implies a form of standardization, whereby a Royal mace could be distinguished from others. Being of silver gilt would not in itself have been sufficient.

^{page 212 note 3} St. John Hope 1895, vol. i, p. xxix.

^{page 212 note 1} Index 6812. Michael Crake had been granted the reversion of the appointment, after the death of John Hunt, in July 1643 (see Index 6811).

^{page 212 note 2} H. of L., vol. vii, September 1645 and H. of C, vol. iv, September/December 1645.

^{page 213 note 1} H.of C., vol. iv, January 1646.

^{page 213 note 2} Cal. S.P. Dom., 27th March 1649.

^{page 213 note 3} Ibid., 1650 to 1654.

^{page 213 note 4} Ibid., 19th December 1653.

^{page 213 note 5} Ibid., 6th October 1654.

^{page 213 note 6} Ibid., 5th October 1659.

^{page 213 note 7} St. John Hope 1895, vol. i, pp. xlvii and xlix. He reproduces verbatim relevant extracts from House of Commons Journal and Calendar State Papers Domestic.

^{page 215 note 1} Several civic maces of Maundy's design have survived, most with alterations to the insignia. The Marl-borough mace is probably the nearest to the original form.

^{page 215 note 2} St. John Hope 1895, vol. i, pp. xlvii, xlix.

^{page 215 note 3} It is not entirely certain there ever was a Scottish mace made; Cal. S.P. Dom. transcribes the entry for it as a ‘mare’ the letter ‘r’ and ‘c’ being almost identical in the original script. The interpretation as ‘mare’ is less un-likely than it sounds, as a petition submitted to Charles II on 29th July 1661 (see Cal. S.P. Dom.) by Thomas Maundy and others shows him to have been interested in agriculture. There does not seem to be any other contemporary reference to a Scottish mace, but St. John Hope accepts its existence.

^{page 215 note 4} H. of C, vol. viii, 25th and 27th April 1660.

^{page 215 note 5} Morrah, Patrick, 1660 The Year of Restoration (London, 1960)Google Scholar.

^{page 216 note 1} H. of L., vol. xi, 12th to 16th May 1660.

^{page 216 note 2} St. John Hope 1895, Note 35.

^{page 216 note 3} Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 592–3.

^{page 216 note 4} Ibid., vol. i, pp. xlix and 1.

^{page 217 note 1} S.P., vol. vii, No. 71.

^{page 218 note 1} S.P. 29, vol. xx, No. 122.

^{page 218 note 2} Index 6813, March 166C-1.

^{page 218 note 3} Ibid., May 1661.

^{page 218 note 4} L.C. 5–137, p. 129.

^{page 218 note 5} L.C. 5–107, p. 65.

^{page 218 note 6} L.C. 3–33, June 1660.

^{page 218 note 7} Though the warrant was addressed to Robert Vyner, the King's goldsmith, the latter was the banker only, and the mace would probably have gone to his cousin, Sir Thomas Vyner, who is thought to have provided most of the plate at the time, and would have probably been only too willing to help out the Lord Chamberlain in a matter of this sort. He lent £100,000 to the Treasury soon after Charles II's accession.

^{page 219 note 1} These transactions would have gone through the Jewel House, and probably the ordinary market price paid, According to the Jewel House Warrant Book, another mace was provided for the President of Connaught in July 1662; again there is no record of its source.

The Great Wardrobe provided two maces for the King's Deputy in Ireland, supplied by Sir Thomas Viner, and one for the President of Munster, supplied by Edward Backwell, in August and October 1660; all were paid for at full market price, and the weights were between two hundred and fifty and two hundred and sixty ounces. Another, supplied by Sir Thomas Viner also, weight two hundred and sixty-two ounces eighteen penny weights, was provided for the Irish House of Commons in August 1662. See Great Wardrobe Warrants Book L.C. 5–60, pp. 8, 54, and 335, L.C. 5–39, pp. 76, 80, and 178, and Jewel House Warrant Book L.C. 5–107, pp. 69, 70, and 91.

^{page 219 note 2} These terms, used for brevity, are technically incorrect. All were Sergeants-at-Arms in Ordinary to the King, some being appointed to attend the Lord Chancellor, etc.

^{page 220 note 1} L.C. 3–33, December 1661.

^{page 220 note 2} In fact, he probably did not lose it; the Jewel House Account Book L.C. 9–46, pp. 10 and 11, shows that the Jewel House was in a muddle—see also Section VII of this article, and Cal. Treas. Books (Shaw), vol. viii, quoting case as put up by Middleton, 2 July 1685.

^{page 220 note 3} L.C. 5–201, pp. 216–19.

^{page 220 note 4} L.C. 9–44, End of Book.

^{page 221 note 1} Index 6819; the docquet included attendance on the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal, as well as the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Keeper, and this was included in all subsequent letters patent of this appointment.

^{page 221 note 2} Index 6820. Sarles Goatley had acted as deputy to Perssehouse since 1703. He died shortly after his appointment to Perssehouse's place in April 1713; see also Sergeants-at-Arms in attendance House of Lords.

^{page 221 note 3} Cal. Treas. Books, vol. ii, p. 3.

^{page 221 note 4} Pettus 1680, Ch. XIX.

^{page 222 note 1} Cal. Treas. Books, vol. iv, 1673.

^{page 222 note 2} L.C. 9–43, p. 16.

^{page 223 note 1} L.C. 5–151, p. 148.

^{page 223 note 2} L.C. 9–44, p. 17.

^{page 223 note 3} L.C. 5–162, p. 70. There are numerous entries in Calendar Treasury Books, vols. xx to xxvii covering period 1705 to 1713 showing Sarles Goatley and Charles period 1705 to 1713 showing Sarles Goatley and Charles Stone as receiving pay for attending the Speaker of the House of Peers in the Lords.

^{page 223 note 4} L.C. 11–58. Bill Book for quarter ending 5th January 1828.

^{page 224 note 1} Index 6814, May 1661.

^{page 224 note 2} L.C. 5–138, p. 337

^{page 224 note 3} L.C. 5–141, pp. 204–6.

^{page 224 note 4} Ibid., pp. 256 and 263.

^{page 224 note 5} L.C. 5–142, p. 154.

^{page 225 note 1} S.P. Dom. Car. II 411, No. 80.

^{page 225 note 2} Ibid., Entry Book 51, p. 194.

^{page 225 note 3} L.C. 5–144, p. 74.

^{page 225 note 4} L.C. 5–145, p. 198.

^{page 226 note 1} Index 6812, July 1660.

^{page 226 note 2} Index 6816, July 1675.

^{page 226 note 3} Index 6817, September 1684.

^{page 226 note 4} L.C. 5–149, pp. 55, 74, 107.

^{page 226 note 5} Index 6819, June 1701.

^{page 226 note 6} Index 6820, June 1702 and February 1706.

^{page 227 note 1} L.C. 1–44, p. 126.

^{page 227 note 2} L.C. 5–145, p. 145.

^{page 227 note 3} Index 6818, August 1686.

^{page 227 note 4} L.C. 3–63, p. 264.

^{page 228 note 1} Index 6813, January 1662.

^{page 228 note 2} L.C. 9–43, p. 73.

^{page 228 note 3} L.C. 5–162, p. 196.

^{page 228 note 4} Sir George Naylor, Coronation Book King George IV p. 96.

^{page 228 note 5} This total does not include two ‘Progress’ maces of weight ‘one hundred and twenty ounces or thereabouts’, made in June 1661, to be held by the Jewel House and issued to Sergeants-at-Arms for use on special occasions, being afterwards returned. The last mention of either is in May 1700.

^{page 228 note 6} L.C. 5–108, p. 79.

^{page 229 note 1} 1 L.C. 5–107 and 108. Maces provided for the Sergeant-at-Arms attending the House of Commons in 1670 and the Lord Treasurer in 1685.

^{page 229 note 2} See references in the Jewel House Account Books Series L.C. 9–46 to 49.

^{page 229 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 230 note 1} Considered in detail later.

^{page 230 note 2} L.C. 9–45, pp. 4, 72 (House of Commons mace) and p. 116 (Sergeant Topham's mace); all these entries refer to the same mace, probably slightly altered.

The –2–2 is quarters and sixteenths of an ounce troy, the sub-division of the ounce then used by the Jewel House. See Major-General Sitwell, H. D. W., ‘The Jewel House and the Royal Goldsmiths’, (Arch. Journal cxvii (1962), 131–55). As this mace now weighs 236 oz. troy without the staff, some parts must have been changed.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 1} These were at standard rates per ounce troy for new making, gilding, boiling, etc. As a rule, it is the weight of the piece or pieces only that are affected that are mentioned.

^{page 231 note 2} For period 1685–9, if the staff is included in the weight it is usually mentioned.

^{page 231 note 3} L.C. 9–44 and 45.

^{page 233 note 1} Only two of these survive today.

^{page 234 note 1} The Burlington Magazine, December 1958.

^{page 235 note 1} L.C. 9–46, pp. 10 and II.

^{page 235 note 2} See Note 2, p. 230.

^{page 235 note 3} L.C. 9–44, p. 17. One, No. 5, was not delivered until the coronation of Queen Anne.

^{page 235 note 4} L.C. 9–45, p. 142. The weights after repair, now engraved on the arches, are not given, but can be calculated from figures in the Accounts Book L.C. 9–48, pp. 142 and 143.

^{page 235 note 5} L.C. 5–228, pp. 2 and 3.

^{page 236 note 1} Jackson, C. J., English Goldsmiths and their Marks (2nd ed., 1921), pp. 56–7, 136, 179Google Scholar.

^{page 236 note 2} Ibid., p. 151.

^{page 236 note 3} Ibid., p. 139.

^{page 236 note 4} I believe this to be the earliest record of the powers of arrest of a Sergeant-at-Arms in the Royal Service. Though fairly well known, I can find no record of its having been published before.

It is undated, but is in the writing and style of the mid sixteenth century, but I think the substance is a good deal earlier. The ‘eldest son of the King or his daughters’ would be unlikely to refer to Henry VIII who had only one legitimate son; Henry VII or Edward IV seems more probable. Further, the office of Constable of England lapsed to the Crown temp. Henry VIII.

It seems possible that this paper, or the substance of it, was taken from an annexure to the Household Regulations of Edward IV (the ‘Liber Niger’) or the ordinance of 1478.

^{page 237 note 1} ‘‘heade bare’; ‘armed to the feete with armes of a knighte Ridinge’. This description seems applicable to the two figures, on the right and left of the dais on which is the King's throne, in Froissart's picture of the coronation of Henry IV.

^{page 237 note 2} ‘with a peione Roiall or mace of Silvere in his Right hande’. The pheon is today an heraldic charge in the shape of an arrow-head. Here it probably means a feathered dart, often shown in medieval illuminations as carried by persons of quality, including Sergeants-at-Arms.

^{page 238 note 1} I am much indebted to Mr. A. J. Taylor for this transcript.

^{page 239 note 1} Docquet for Norfolk's Letters Patent of Appointment was for attendance on the Speaker House of Commons only. It did not include duty of attending King when there was no Parliament, which was included in Birkhead's Patent made out by Parliament in 1646.

^{page 248 note 1} L.C. 9–43, p. 116.

Article contents

VI.—Royal Sergeants-at-Arms and the Royal Maces

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests