Featured James II gun money in Ireland

Kolbe & Fanning have one:

https://www.numislit.com/pages/book...-1689-1691-for-the-irish-campaign-of-james-ii

The initial print run sold out; there was a further run and they are/were available directly from the author, Phil Timmins, but it may be cheaper for you to get one your side of the Atlantic.

I'll ask Ronan, the editor, what the current availability is - I don't think NSI has had any in stock for over a year - I can PM you the author's email address if you need to get a copy from him.

ATB,
Aidan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Does anyone know what the binding is for this reference? I dont typically buy softcovers (cardcovers, etc).

 

It's a hardback.

 

I think Kolbe may have copies. That's where I got mine last year.

Barry

 

Those are pretty cool, I have a soft spot for emergency issues, I've added "gunmoney" to my list!

I do have a worn coin of Charles II, a "bawbee".



Charles II (1649-1685), Copper Bawbee, 1677
CAR•II•D•G•SCO•AN•FR•ET•HIB•R, draped and laureate bust left, rev., crowned thistle, NEMO•ME•IMPUNE•LACESSET ("No one provokes me with impunity")•1677

 

Great gold coin (guinea) of James II.

In the last few years, I've focused my amateur studies on the "Glorious Revolution" and the intense English / British politics of that era.

Just to clarify what you wrote, it was James II's son, James III (1688-1766), who was the Old Pretender.

It was James III's son, Charles Edward Stuart (1720-1788), who was the Young Pretender. Charles was also known in history as Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Here are the children of James III (the Old Pretender) on the obverse sides of one of my favorite medals:



The obverse is an image of Prince Charles Edward Stuart (the Young Pretender).
The Latin inscription "Micat inter omnes" (which comes from Horace's "Odes") could be read as "He shines in the mist of all."

It's been suggested that the star in this coin's field could represent Caesar's Comet. This bright comet occurred during Caesar's funerary festival and became a very convenient piece of propaganda for Augustus. It would be hoped that Charles (the Young Pretender) would bring, like Caesar, peace and stability to Rome.

Or, this star could even represent the famous Star of Bethlehem, suggesting an almost messianic entitlement to the throne.



The reverse is an image of James III's younger second son, Prince Henry. The inscription "Alter ab illo" means "The next after him." This second heir would solidify and secure the Stuart succession.

Good stuff. I love the English / British history and numismatics of this period (1688-1837). There are so many rich allusions to the ancients during this time. Without knowing ancient history, one would miss the significance of a lot of the literature and numismatics of that time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=IQr3AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Micat+inter+omnes&source=bl&ots=mhVnr9NC3h&sig=ACfU3U2IPva6iP-wxGFeishjt7rJXu4z3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ-ISYwJDlAhUBL30KHenRDi0Q6AEwCXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Micat inter omnes&f=false

 

It is more likely they were brought to England by soldiers returning from the Williamite War in Ireland.

They could well have circulated there because much of the copper coins circulating in England in the early 1700s was either fake, or an unofficial trade token. After 1691 they circulated in Ireland at a fraction of their face value.
Gunmoney Sixpence = 1 farthing
Gunmoney shilling = 1 halfpenny

It is very unlikely they circulated at face value in England either because sixpences, shillings and halfcrowns were silver, not copper or brass.

 

Yes, I judge these coins are part of a big and very complicated picture. England almost always maintained its coinage better than its continental neighbours, and in 1666 England abolished all seigniorage and made all gold and silver coin "full bodied". So its interesting to see this bid for the English throne, backed by France and the Papacy, was almost entirely fiat.

Readers should I think bear in mind that Adam Smith believed England made a mistake on the general matter, and commended France for maintaining a seigniorage on coinage (about 8% as I recall). Indeed in 1816 England changed its policy and put a seigniorage back on silver, at 6% I think.

There was also huge row early in the 18th century over the projected Woods halfpennies for Ireland. This is much misrepresented in all sorts of literature. Swift clearly stirred Irish nationalism against the Woods coinage. The truth about its intrinsic value seems to be that English halfpennies were about 50% over valued against intrinsic, while Woods Irish issue was about 60% over valued. So there was a small difference, which Woods claimed was to do with distribution costs. Swift's account of the matter was however a gross and quite deliberate propagandistic misrepresentation.

Those carried away by nationalist sentiment did not notice that Swift had been associated with the Tory English gvt which blocked all copper issue under Ann, and I judge the real target of his propaganda was the English Whig administration which was pushing out huge amounts of copper coin in England. (Samuel) Johnson's comments on "nationalism" and "scoundrels" may well have had Swift in mind.

Around the same time another Irishman, Berkeley, made an amazingly accurate recommendation for what looks very much like the post 1947 Keynsian monetary system. Except for the fact that, if Bankers had followed the advice Berkeley gave around 1730, on mortgage backed fiat paper, we would have avoided the 2008 crash.............

Anyhow, I am afraid that museum notice board that Christian chose to post earlier looks like a modern piece of propaganda to me, so am curious to know what the Timmins book says concerning the economic history of this matter.

Paul Withers was pretty grumpy about the new Timmins book, but does not touch on the economic content, if there is any. Is Timmins inline with that museum suggestion?

http://www.galata.co.uk/assets/uploaded/docs/37.pdf

Rob T

 

I appreciate and enjoyed your enthusiastic and informative reply. That said, I respectfully disagree with your paragraph above.

The reason for the lack of copper coinage during the reign of Queen Anne was not a result of party (Whig v. Tory) politics. It was, however, from an excess copper coinage during the reign of William III (1695-1701), Queen Anne's predecessor:

THE PATTERN HALFPENNIES AND FARTHINGS OF ANNE By C. WILSON PECK

https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/1958_BNJ_29_16.p
df

The politics of Queen Anne was very fierce and partisan. Political power vacillated between the two main parties, Whigs and Tories, as well as among factions within each party. Neither party, however, was motivated to continue copper coinage.

During Queen Anne's reign (1702-1714), there just wasn't a need or demand for more copper coinage, which was both abundant and of poor quality.

https://www.numismaticnews.net/article/spanish-silver-filled-queen-annes-coffers

g.


Note: Copper coinage wasn't resumed in Britain until 1717, three years after Queen Anne's death. The Whig party already had solid control of the government for three years since the arrival of Queen Anne's successor, George I in 1714. With George I's arrival from Hanover and accession, the Tory party quickly fractured and fell from power, with its two most prominent leaders either in exile (Bolingbroke) or in prison awaiting trial for treason (Harley).

 

I humbly suggest that the road to respectful disagreement would be to point out merely that my opinion differs from that of C W Peck, and in some ways R W Julian. As I suggested to Valentinian elsewhere – in maths we may be able to tell people they are just plain wrong – generally regarding historical subjects, one should exercise more restraint.

The copper coinage apparently ceased under Ann due to petitions from merchants which seem to be centrally orchestrated. Just the same thing happened when copper coin issue ceased early under George III. But that second incident surely led to huge issues of copper tokens clearly pointing to a shortage of official copper, even R W Julian admits that much.

Peck seems to me to be merely repeating the Political party line of c. 1700. Personally I think it always prudent to check what any politician is telling me.

For me the real story here is to do with the silver shortage. In 1694 the Bank of England was set up to fund the William’s war effort in France. It offered 8% per annum on deposits (!) and the money poured in, and mostly one presumes in silver. As I understand it the Bank was able to advance a million pounds to William to pay for mercenary troops in continental Europe, and that would mostly, I suspect, be extracted from the circulating silver coinage of England. Meanwhile the East India Company seems to have been spiriting a lot more silver coin out of the country to fund trade in the East. Subsequent runs on the bank were presumably due to people wanting to draw their deposits in silver, or gold, as there is no reason to suppose the Bank of England ever ran out of paper.

Thus the large copper issues under William III and later George I and especially II seem to me and others to be an attempt to fill the gap in the coinage created by the export of silver. The merchants who opposed this around 1700 and again in the 1750’s seem to prefer to push much of the population into coinlessness which in the UK is called Trucking, but which resembles what I gather in the US is generally called scrip. Both are not too far distant from what the credit card companies are aiming at today, in my own opinion.

Regarding R W Julian – elsewhere he writes

“Boulton believed that the copper coinage, in order to keep counterfeiters at bay, ought to contain its full value of copper.”

https://www.numismaticnews.net/article/boultons-british-copper-1797-1807

Well if that is true then it seems to me Boulton would be a hypocrite, since as I recall his 1797 penny weighed a full ounce, but at a time when a full ounce of copper cost about 0.7 of a penny.

If anyone wishes to read further into this subject I recommend an old book by an American in exile, Alexander del Mar: “A History of Monetary Crimes”

For a fuller account of my own position see this

https://www.academia.edu/33034920/Maria_Graham_and_the_Problem_of_Small_Change

(From NC 2017)

Rob T

 

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

I'm not sure I agree with everything but I found this paragraph from the above article interesting (but possibly unrelated to the main topic):

I found it surprising that although George III had begun his reign in 1760, copper coinage with his portrait didn't first appear until 1770 (halfpenny) and 1771 (farthing).

The information about Matthew Boulton is educational, but it should be noted that he was born in 1728, more than a decade after Queen Anne died (1714).


(Scene of Queen Anne's Palace from the movie "The Favourite"

Good stuff.


g.

 

Well Rob @EWC3 ... what does this post mean? They are very interesting and informative plaques displayed in The Republic of Ireland at their excellent museum.. I have been there - wonderful exhibit. See the lovely Gaelic script shown here on CT? I believe the text is well thought out and accurate. Nothing troubling about facts ...and showing great coins to boot.. I think we should applaud museums that take such care instead of displaying piles of coins that do not explain the true historical context to the uninformed.

 

I already addressed that point in part, when I wrote: “The text concerning "punishing the losers" mentions the “The effect” when referencing what was surely “An effect”."

If the question had been framed as fair minded criticism – it should have taken note of that.

I suggest readers wishing to get to a dispassionate understanding of the “true historical context” consider these questions

Should the Allies have backed up the Reichsmark at full initial launch value after WWII?

Should the Allies have propped up the Papiermark after WWII?

Should the US government have bought up confederate dollars at the official dollar rate after the American Civil War?

Etc etc

If your answer is simply yes to these and a myriad similar question, then you will be perfectly satisfied with the display text in question But I rather think I would not be alone in expressing doubts.

Rob T

 

Obviously my last should read:

Should the Allies have propped up the Papiermark after WWI?

Rob T

 

Its currently out of print but the Numismatic Society of Ireland are going to do a re-run, with updates and a few corrections. You can contact them here: http://www.numismaticsocietyofireland.com/

 

Armed with the knowledge in this book, you will make money!
Buy with confidence.
Its worth it.

 

James I of England - Pater familias of the House of Stuart and father of Charles I


Commemorative medal by renowned Swiss engraver Jean Dassier, circa. mid 1700s. Diameter: 39.92mm, Weight: 36.30gm

Obverse depiction: James I bare headed, facing right, wearing Royal regalia
Inscription: IACOBVS I DG M BR FRA ET HIB REX
(James I by the Grace of God King of Great Britain, Scotland, France and Ireland)

Reverse depiction: his tomb with two Genii. The one on the right is adding the Scottish Lion to the British Royal Coat of Arms. The seated one on the left is pointing to a book - alluding to the fame of James I as a bibliophile.

Inscription in exergue:
NAT 19 JUN 1556
CORONAT 25 JUL 1603
MORT 27 MART 1625
(Date of Birth, Coronation and Death)

Notes:
1. Also simultaneously King James VI of Scotland.
2. He was a firm believer in the Divine Right of Kings to govern.
3. He was a staunch Protestant and defender of that faith.
4. He directed and oversaw the re-write of the Protestant Bible.
5. The Catholic Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament was thwarted on November 5th, 1605.

 

An announcement has appeared on Facebook groups that a new edition of the Phil Timmins Gunmoney book has been published and is available from the author directly.

I'll copy and paste the advertisement posted on Facebook by Stephen Blencoe:


I don't know any more about it, but it sounds interesting. I've got a copy of the first edition.

ATB,
Aidan.

 

Just came across this mid 19th century view of "gun money" (by Macaulay). Interesting to contrast it with some current opinions........

Rob T

"In that part of Ireland, meanwhile, which still acknowledged James as King, there could hardly be said to be any law, any property, or any government. The Roman Catholics of Ulster and Leinster had fled westward by tens of thousands, driving before them a large part of the cattle which had escaped the havoc of two terrible years. The influx of food into the Celtic region, however, was far from keeping pace with the influx of consumers. The necessaries of life were scarce. Conveniences to which every plain farmer and burgess in England was accustomed could hardly be procured by nobles and generals. No coin was to be seen except lumps of base metal which were called crowns and shillings. Nominal prices were enormously high. A quart of ale cost two and sixpence, a quart of brandy three pounds. The only towns of any note on the western coast were Limerick and Galway; and the oppression which the shopkeepers of those towns underwent was such that many of them stole away with the remains of their stocks to the English territory, where a Papist, though he had to endure much restraint and much humiliation, was allowed to put his own price on his goods, and received that price in silver. Those traders who remained within the unhappy region were ruined. Every warehouse that contained any valuable property was broken open by ruffians who pretended that they were commissioned to procure stores for the public service; and the owner received, in return for bales of cloth and hogsheads of sugar, some fragments of old kettles and saucepans, which would not in London or Paris have been taken by a beggar.

As soon as a merchant ship arrived in the bay of Galway or in the Shannon, she was boarded by these robbers. The cargo was carried away; and the proprietor was forced to content himself with such a quantity of cowhides, of wool and of tallow as the gang which had plundered him chose to give him. The consequence was that, while foreign commodities were pouring fast into the harbours of Londonderry, Carrickfergus, Dublin, Waterford and Cork, every mariner avoided Limerick and Galway as nests of pirates."