England's First Coppers (or How Britannia Married Her Royal Lover's Cousin)

I recently added a couple of James I ‘Haringtons’ to my unplanned but growing collection of Stuart-era farthings. These little copper coins lack portraits, but they’re attractive in better condition and the political, personal and numismatic stories behind them are compelling. They’re often described as England’s first copper coins, although the Pre-Roman Britons might have something to say about that. They were, however, the first copper coins struck after England was unified by Edgar in 973.

Æthelred I Sceatta, 789-796

Northumbria. Copper, 0.95g. Variety IV. +AEDILRED. +CEOLBALD. Ex Tony Abramson; found at Garton-on-the-Wolds, East Yorkshire (Abramson Sceatta List 80-120 plate coin). (Photo: Spink). An English copper coin struck 820 years before England’s ‘first’ copper coins, but also 180 years before ‘England’. The ‘Kingdom of Northumbria of the Angles’ provided the name England (Angle Land) when the rest of the country was full of Saxons, the earliest recorded use being ‘Engla londe’ in Northumbrian monk Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People in 731.

Even if James I’s farthings are the first English coppers, they’re not coins. They’re tokens. Rising silver prices made silver change too small and impractical to use, but the coin shortage caused great hardship and private traders struck their own in lead. It was a practice the authorities were keen to stamp out. Copper offered an alternative, but to contain their face value in copper, the coins would be huge, costly to produce and, again, impractical to use. The solution was to make them smaller and worth less than face value. But the Royal Mint refused to mint them for fear of devaluing the currency, and although officially sanctioned, they weren’t made legal tender (i.e. you didn’t have to accept them in payment of a debt. Unless you were poor).

Nevertheless, James I had successfully issued copper coins in Scotland (as James VI), so in May 1613 he gave a patent for issuing ‘Royal’ copper farthings in England to his friend John Harington. This was to compensate John for having ruined him by making him guardian of his daughter Princess Elizabeth (and so responsible for the cost of her social life). Even so, patent holders had to pay the king a huge cut. The design was stipulated in James I’s proclamation, so that the crown, sceptres, harp, legends, weight, materials and use of privy marks were all preordained (much like James I).

James I ‘Harington’ Farthings. Above: Type 1a, 1613. Below: Type 1b, 1613-4

Above: 12mm, 0.38g, die axis 180°. IACO D* G. MAG BRIT (James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain); privy mark B (on base of crown). Harington knot (fret), FRA. ET. HIB. REX (France and Ireland, King) (Everson Type 1a 3; Peck/BMC Type 1a 29). (Photo: DNW). The letter privy marks may have signified the specific press used.
Below: 12mm, 0.30g, die axis 180°. IACO D* G. MAG BRIT (Obverse 1); privy mark (central jewel on band of crown) unmodified. Harington knot, FRA. ET. HIB. REX (Everson Type 1b 11; Peck/BMC Type 1b 39). (Photo: Spink). Just as ‘Harington’ is often spelt incorrectly, the tokens are sometimes described as Irish, perhaps because of the harp. But despite being the only English coppers to mention Ireland (or France), they weren’t used in Ireland until 1622, when oval tokens were issued for that purpose. It’s said, however, that the harp was added in case they were a failure and they could be sent to Ireland instead.

The copper came from Cornwall and Sweden and the first issues (Type 1a) were ‘silvered’ with a coat of tin, some say to prevent counterfeiting, others to make them look like the old silver farthings and so acceptable to the public. Just a few months later that stopped (Type 1b is rarely tinned), as it was costing too much.

Only 4 million Type 1’s were produced, since no sooner had John Harington given the job of issuing them to Gerard de Malynes (whose idea they were), than John died, while accompanying Princess Elizabeth to the Rhine after her marriage to the Elector Palatine (who reminds me of Star Wars for some reason). He passed the patent to his son John, a friend of James I’s recently deceased son Henry Frederick, who managed to issue Type 1 before he contracted smallpox and died in 1614 aged 21. It was left to Lady Harington to mint the farthings at a Token House off Lothbury near the Bank of England.

James I ‘Harington’ Type 2 Farthing, 1614

15mm, 0.61g, die axis 180°. 5 jewels on circlet of crown, IACO. D. G. MAG. BRIT (Obverse 2). Lys privy mark (reverse only), 7 harp strings, FRA: ET. HIB: REX. (Reverse 1) (Everson Type 2 18b; Peck/BMC Type 2 49). Strips of copper sheet, one coin wide and nine long, were passed through rollers, the obverse stamped on it by the upper roller and the reverse by the lower. The farthings were then cut out with a circular punch. If misaligned, a coin might get a flat side (if it was at the edge of the strip) or a chunk cut out of it. In response to complaints about their size, they were increased to 15mm.

Low demand from merchants meant the tens of thousands of pounds the tokens were expected to earn each year never materialised. Gerard de Malynes went bankrupt and ended up in Fleet Debtors’ Prison, not for the first time, having not long got out after a lengthy legal battle, accused of embezzlement while helping Dutch traders buy the cargo of a captured Spanish ship. This time he claimed his debts were due to his employers insisting on paying him in the (intrinsically worthless) farthings.

Ironically, de Malynes, a respected economist and one-time assay master at the Royal Mint, had recommended “setting the face value of the coin exactly equal to its metallic content” when writing about the debasement of silver issues in 1601. He believed this would stop ‘wasteful’ speculation on the currency, which he considered an attack on the authority of the king (who’d placed his stamp on coins). He thought a nation’s balance of trade, and so wealth, depended on its reserves of precious metals. His certainly did.

Lady Harington was only minting farthings to clear the debt she’d been left by her husband and in 1616, when the 3-year patent expired, she passed it to Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox. It was actually awarded to goldsmiths Thomas Garrett and Edward Woodward, who were working for Lennox (as replacements for de Malynes), but at the time the government was anti-monopoly, and it was prudent to keep Lennox’s name out of it.

James I ‘Lennox’ Type 2 Farthing, 1616

16mm, 0.72g, die axis 180°. IACO: D: G: MAG: BRIT:; Flower privy mark. Eagle-headed harp (6 strings), FRA: ET HIB: REX. (Reverse 1) (Everson Type 2 25; Peck/BMC Type 3b 56). You can distinguish Harington and Lennox farthings by the placement of the name IACO (James), which is between the sceptres on a Harington. These were some of the first coins to reach the American Colonies – perhaps as early as 1617 – with examples found at Jamestown, although Americans preferred to use wampum (Native American shell beads) and musket balls as small change.

Lennox had wanted the patent from the outset. That he didn’t get it is puzzling, since Lennox’s father, Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox, is rumoured to have been James I’s lover. This situation seems rather unbelievable given James I’s writings against sodomy; Lennox was his first cousin once removed; and when they met, Lennox was 37 and James was 13. But they were extremely close. James at 14 was "in such love with [Lennox] as in the open sight of the people often he [would] clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him".

The 2nd Duke of Lennox became the 1st Duke of Richmond in 1623 and died in 1624, a year before James I. Token production continued under Charles I, issued by Lennox’s widow, the Duchess of Richmond (who was also the widow of Jane Seymour’s nephew).

Charles I ‘Richmond’ Farthings. Above: Type 2, 1625-31. Below: Type 2 CARA Contemporary Counterfeit from Scarborough, 1625-31

Above: 16mm, 0.53g, die axis 0°. CARO: D: G: MAG: BRI (Obverse 2); Three lys privy mark. Eagle-headed harp (6 strings), FRA: ET HIB: REX (Reverse 3) (Everson Type 2 93; Peck/BMC Type 1c 182). ‘Richmond’ tokens are much like ‘Lennox’ tokens but replaced IACO (James) with CARO (Charles). Indeed, the first Richmond dies had C_R_ recut over I_C_.
Below: 16mm, 0.51g, die axis 180°. CARA. D G MAG: BRIT: with dagger privy mark. Eagle-headed harp (5 strings), FRA: ET: HIB: REX. (Everson Type 2 C31; Peck/BMC Type 1b 125). (Photo: DNW). It’s thought these CARA counterfeits were made with stolen official punches, but the counterfeiter didn’t have O (so repeated A) or E (so modified F). Note the punctuation errors (‘.’ after CARA, ‘:’after ET). Nearly all examples were found dumped in the well at Scarborough Castle, surviving the Great Siege of Scarborough Castle in 1645, a focal point of the Civil War.

The Duchess of Richmond then passed the patent to Henry Howard, 15th Earl of Arundel but known as Lord Maltravers, who, in their incestuous world, was both her 1st cousin 3 times removed and married to her husband’s niece.

Despite high demand for small change, the farthings weren't popular. Merchants didn’t like them as issuers wouldn't redeem them in silver. Workers didn’t like them because their employers took advantage of favourable terms in their purchase – they received 21 shillings of tokens for one pound (20 shillings) of silver, so bought huge amounts and offloaded them as wages. To counter this, it was arranged that anyone could exchange them back to silver at the Token House, but this was only any use for people in London, and new issuers found reasons not to exchange older tokens.

Nicholas Briot, chief engraver at the Royal Mint (and inventor of the coining press) criticised the farthings, saying they were ugly, light and easily counterfeited. So, he redesigned them, which Lord Maltravers needed to do in any case so he could declare all previous farthings counterfeit and not have to exchange them for silver. Given the constraints in the patent, Briot’s were very similar, just as light and just as easy to counterfeit.

Charles I ‘Maltravers’ Type 2 Farthing, 1634-6

16mm, 0.51g, die axis 0°. .CAROLVS. D! G! MAG! BRIT (Obverse 5); Martlet privy mark both sides. .FRAN! ET. HIB! REX (Reverse 2) (Everson Type 2 134c; Peck/BMC Type 3b 247). Maltravers farthings are identifiable by their inner ring (‘double ring’) and most also have an inner arch to the crown (‘double arch’). The martlet is a beakless, footless bird that symbolises continuous effort (on account of it never being able to land).

Difficulty circulating the farthings and their low intrinsic value resulted in abundant forgeries. The poor, who had to accept farthings for lack of small change, were given worsening exchange rates for silver, resulting in ever more forgeries. Most fakes were poor, but the issuers couldn’t even distinguish the better forgeries from their own, particularly under Charles I when the quality of official coins deteriorated.

Public displeasure (and a little rioting) led to the design being changed again. They were made heavier and the harp was swapped for a rose. The design was later simplified (with single roses and shorter legends) to reduce the cost of production. Over 60 privy marks were added to prevent counterfeiting, but while these help identify forgeries (with impossible placements or combinations), this didn’t stop the counterfeiters, so Lord Maltravers was asked to add a brass segment. Often toning makes this segment difficult to see, but it is there (except Type 5, produced when parliament took over production).

There’s uncertainty as to how the segment was added, but it seems a bar of copper was cast, the brass attached (‘soldered’), and this combination drawn into rods to the diameter of the coins. (I’m imagining a process similar to that to make rock candy). Alternatively, copper rods were drawn, a notch was added, and molten brass poured into the notch. The rods were then sliced into blank flans. This process made the flans thicker than the older farthings, so to save money the diameter was reduced to 13mm, although they were still much heavier. The design was then added with a press (they are rarely double struck).

Charles I ‘Rose’ Farthings. Above: Type 3, 1636-7 (under Maltravers). Below: Type 5a, 1643-4 (under Parliament)

Above: 13mm, 1.38g with brass segment, die axis 0°. Double-arch crown, sceptres through legend to edge, CAROLVS. D: G MAG: BRIT: (Obverse 1). Double rose, pointed-side crown, .FRAN: ET. HIB: REX. with Lys privy mark on reverse only (Everson Type 3 164; Peck/BMC Type 1c 309).
Below: 13mm, 1.13g, die axis 0°. Sceptres below crown with bosses on handles, CAROLV. D: G. MAG: BR; Mullet privy mark both sides. FRA: ET: HIB: REX. (Everson Type 5a 208a; Peck/BMC Type 3a 348). (Photo: DNW).

England’s first copper coins or not, they were some of the first to use privy marks to prevent forgery (as opposed to using mintmarks for quality control) and were England’s first bimetallic coins, predating the £2 coin by 350 years. They went from being heavily faked to almost impossible to counterfeit.

Production was now at 8 million a year and intensified at the start of the English Civil War in 1642 as silver disappeared from circulation. But with no silver to exchange, disquiet grew. Parliament took over the Token House in 1643. The final farthings were heavier and poorer quality, since the best moneyers had gone. Often the brass segment was omitted. The design was changed, with the sceptres crossing beneath the crown, probably because the Parliamentarians feared Charles I was minting farthings in Bristol, where he’d fled, to pay his army, and they didn’t want him exchanging his for silver. Production ceased entirely in 1644 and any remaining farthings were melted down in 1645 (or chucked into the well at Scarborough Castle).

Maltravers died shortly after the war in 1652, heavily in debt, having being charged £5,000 by the Parliamentarians so that they might exchange the vast quantities of farthings for silver, and having made nothing from his 21-year patent, awarded in 1639, after 1642.

Private companies stepped in and minted their own tokens to fill the numismatic void. There didn’t seem to be any problem accepting them anymore – not when the merchants could redeem them for their own goods rather than silver.

Christopher Flower Privately-issued Farthing, 1650-2

Lead, 15mm, 1.73g. CRISTOPHER.FLOWER around fleur-de-lys. Shield containing Draper's Arms (Christopher Flower was a London draper) (M Dickinson 62D). It’s believed this token was issued during the Commonwealth of England, before Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector. Known as ‘farthings’ (1/4 penny), their abundance and low intrinsic value meant they were probably traded at as much as 8 to the penny.

Private tokens were produced until 1672, into the reign of Charles II, when they were once again banned. This time, the Royal Mint did produce its own copper farthings, between 1672 and 1679. The planchets were imported from Sweden, since the Royal Mint didn’t have the capability of producing rolled copper sheets. The coins weighed 5.2-6.4g, twenty times the size of Harington’s but still worth only half their face value in copper. Along with halfpennies, these were the first coins the Royal Mint produced worth less than their face value and were considered tokens, only legal tender for debts of 6 pence or less.

In the design, an image of Britannia was brought back not seen since the bronze issues of Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius 1500 years earlier. It’s rumoured the model for Britannia was Charles II’s mistress, Frances Teresa Stewart, who was the Duchess of Richmond and Lennox. Her husband, who died later in 1672, was Charles Stewart, 3rd Duke of Richmond and 6th Duke of Lennox. He was a great-grandson of Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox, who was in turn the father of Ludovic Stewart, issuer of the ‘Lennox’ farthings. Charles Stewart, Ludovic Stewart and Charles II (Charles Stuart*) were all descended from John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Lennox. So Britannia, the King and the token issuers were all related.

*Charles II’s family name was changed from Stewart by Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and Mary, Queen of Scots to make it easier for the French to pronounce.

Charles II Farthing, 1675

Tower Mint. 21.5mm, 5.90g. CAROLVS ·A· CAROLO (Charles, son of Charles). BRITAN NIA· (S 3394). Note Charles II is facing left, which he generally does on lower-value issues, while on higher-value coins he tends to face right. Contrary to popular belief, James II faces in both directions too, but left on higher-value coins and right on the low-value tin issues. The first monarchs in the tradition of facing in alternate directions were in fact William III and Mary II, if you don’t count William III’s reign as sole monarch as a separate regime.

Now I have one farthing per issuer, it should be time to stop. But their lack of popular appeal makes even rarities relatively inexpensive and collectable (and tempting). So too the numerous varieties and seemingly endless privy marks. There’s always one more to get…

Table of Types (the technical bit)
Farthings differ in size, shape, placement of privy marks, crown style (e.g. double-arch, single-arch or sceptres below), harp style (e.g. scroll-fronted or eagle-headed) and the number of jewels around the band of the crown. For Irish issues it’s often difficult to tell if a flan is oval, but they can be easily identified as the legend starts at the bottom (with the king’s name). Weight is extremely variable and not very helpful in identification.

To spot fakes you must keep an eye on such things as the number of jewels on the crown; die alignment for a specific privy mark (0°/medal or 180°/coin); and punctuation (colons ‘:’ should appear after abbreviations such as D, BRIT and FRAN, and stops ’.’ (or nothing) after complete words like ET and REX). After all, some of the fakes are rarer and more interesting than the official farthings.

A table of privy marks can be found here: https://oldcurrencyexchange.files.w...arks-privy-marks-of-the-patent-farthings8.jpg. Their names were not those given by the issuers and so are updated from time to time when someone can think of a better description e.g. ‘grapes’ became ‘turtle’ (a fact that highlights how hard it can be to make them out).

Type numbers quoted by dealers usually refer to CW Peck or Tim Everson (who updated Peck). They look the same but are not. Everson’s numbering restarts with each issuer, while Peck’s does not and uses much more of the alphabet. Occasionally, you will see a coin labelled with both e.g. Rose 3/1c. Most of the time the numbering is the same or doesn’t overlap, so that a Maltravers Type 3 must be Everson while a Richmond Type 1d must be Peck.

A notable difference is that Everson does not categorise by legend variations. These, he notes, are not deliberate design changes, but necessitated by engraving such small dies. I haven’t listed all the legend variations, patterns, proofs or counterfeits, which along with privy marks account for all the catalogue numbers.

Farthings illustrated above are indicated in red.


Sources
The Galata Guide to the Farthing Tokens of James I & Charles I. A History and Reclassification, Tim Everson (£25) https://www.galata.co.uk/the-galata...es-i-charles-i-a-history-and-reclassification
The Royal Farthing Tokens of James I, 1952, C Wilson Peck https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital BNJ/pdfs/1952_BNJ_27_30.pdf
The Royal Farthing Tokens, 1906, British Numismatic Society https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital BNJ/pdfs/1906_BNJ_3_11.pdf
Gerard de Malynes, fl.1586-1641, The History of Economic Thought https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/profiles/malynes.htm
Lothbury, British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol1/pp513-515
A Brief History of British Regal Copper Production during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, University of Notre Dame, Department of Special Collections https://coins.nd.edu/colcoin/colcoinintros/Br-Copper.intro.html

Note: We know a lot of the history because of the voluminous writings of Julius Caesar. Sir Julius Caesar, to be precise, who was Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exchequer from 1606 to 1614.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Fantastic write-up.

 

Great write-up & coins.

 

Very nicely done, incredibly interesting. And despite all the farthings they minted there were no where near enough - thankfully for I myself collect 17th century tokens - particularly unusual issues like the rat catcher, the numerous issued by women etc.

 

Really enjoyed your write-up. Thanks for sharing.