Does anyone know of a good article online expanding on the reasons behind the British shortage of coins prior to the Napoleonic wars? I'm trying to do some research into it but can't find any decent sources...
Oh yes, there was a significant shortage of coins in all of Britain. A good read that focuses on Scotland, but rather encompasses the general situation in all of Britain is Nicholas Holmes "History of Small Change in Scotland". During the period from the late 17th through early 19th century the British government more or less ignored small change other than legislating the outlawing of private token issues in 1674 which effectively ended the 17th century token issues. But the Royal Mint did very little to replace the tokens with coins of the realm. The problem was dire enough that it was economical to counterfeit coins down to a farthing and indeed counterfeits from the 18th century are quite common. In addition coins that should have been long since obsolescent continued to circulate almost 100 years after they were first minted, in this case for the Scottish bawbees or sixpences which continued to circulate in Scotland long after the Union in 1707 unified the coinages and again the smallest denominations were ignored. The bawbees continued to circulate as halfpennies right into the 1770s by which time they were significantly worn and underweight and dropped out of sight. The Royal Mint practically did nothing until 1797 with the massive coinage of pennies and twopences that year, then following in 1799 with farthings and halfpence, and 1806 with farthing through the pennies again. Those coins again saw a long circulation and were a significant percentage of the coins surveyed in 1841 in Yorkshire.
Yes, but what I'm wondering is why they weren't willing to supply demand. Gold guineas and other high-value coins seemed to have been minted in adequate numbers, but the shortage seemed to mainly affect small change. I'm wondering if this was down to the aristocratic indifference of Britain's ruling elite at that time, for whom the smaller issues like half-pennies and farthings would not have been relevant to their own lives the way it would have been for ordinary people...
Actually the latter part of your response answers the question - it was an indifference to the needs of the "lesser" classes. That class system pervaded in British thought until the early to mid 19th century when popular literature and political agitation brought about social change that continued to evolve well into the 20th century. Frankly by the early part of the 19th century the powers that were decided they afforded themselves greater security and wealth by letting a degree of wealth and well being trickle down to the lesser classes.
How much of that was due to the French Revolution and the Terror ? I presume they wanted nothing like that in Britain. How much was due to Marxist philosophy ?
It *may* have something to do with the French Revolution. But only in that the great revolutions changed the mindset of all of the Western world. Marxist theory wasn't developed until much later and thus would be irrelevant.
It can be said that the powers that be, the gentry, in Britain were astute enough to let some - think along the lines of the Catholic emancipation in 1831 and other social legislations that went through parliament. Britain was very fortunate by some location and some leaders that she was spared many of the social unrests that other countries such as France experienced because of social class distinctions - curiously the peerage in Britain played their cards right. Inasmuch as Europe experienced much upheaval, so did the United States - culminating in the Civil War.
I can see how they would say "Hoochie mama ! We don't any of that !" It got pretty ugly. Since The Communist Manifesto was published in 1849, I can see how it would have little effect on the coinage originally mentioned. Perhaps Marxism would be relevant to Saor Alba's point "agitation brought about social change that continued to evolve well into the 20th century". Hmmm. Interesting thread...
This is a brief summary that describes why tokens were introduced that touches on your subject of interest: Over a century later, a second crisis produced a second, more massive issue of copper tokens. These pieces first appeared in 1787, and they were struck in consistently large numbers over the next ten years. Their production and circulation was once again rendered unneccessary by action of the Crown: in 1797, George III empowered one of the outstanding token manufacturers, Matthew Boulton, of Soho, near Birmingham, to strike copper coins on behalf of the government. A third and final token issue saw the light in 1811, continuing through most of the 1810-1820 decade. This final series was declared illegal by an 1817 Act of Parliament, although certain places were allowed to circulate tokens for a few more years. In 1821, the Royal Mint took the basic step of providing the public with that which it was now preventing others from providing - the low-denomination copper coins. And it made a determined, consistent effort in this direction. Since that time, tokens have not played an essential part in British monetary life as a whole, although they have been used for a number of specialized purposes, such as public transportation, and in certain specialized industries, such as coal mining. It must be stressed that, when we speak of British tokens, we are almost always speaking of copper pieces, with a stated or implied value of a penny or less. That this should be the case is partially explained by the attitude of the British government concerning copper as a coinage metal. Throughout the period under discussion, the official view was that copper was not a proper metal for a regal coinage at all, and, by extension, that copper coinage was not an especially important activity for the Royal Mint to pursue. This bias led to James I's selling of a patent to produce farthings to his crony, Lord Harington of Rutland, in a most ingenious scheme. Harington was to produce 100,000 lbs. of farthings, weighing six grains each. The king calculated that they would have a circulating value £90,400, but would cost only £25,450 to strike. Harington was to be allowed £25,000 profit for his trouble, and the remaining profit would go to the King! This was in 1613; we can still see traces of the bias against copper in the 1790's, when the Royal Mint, still feeling that a copper coinage was somehow beneath its dignity, allowed Matthew Boulton to strike the famous Cartwheel coins on its behalf. Boulton was allowed to coin copper for it again in 1799, and yet again in 1806-1807. This jaundiced view of copper for coinage was not unique to the British government. We may observe something similar at the early United States Mint, where copper was coined only when there was an absence of gold and silver for the eagles, dollars, and dimes which made up the "real" coinage of the young Republic. This attitude was also reflected in the very limited legal tender status assigned to American copper coins. Of course, such an attitude on the part of officialdom does not neccessarily call forth a copper token coinage. But in the case of Britain, it happened to coincide with a basic historical fact: more and more people where leaving the farm for the workshop and, later, the factory. As Britain moved from a predominantly rural, farming situation to an increasingly urban, industrialized one, the traditional methods of payment for labor and products in kind or in services began to break down. And more and more people entered a wage-earning situation. In the absence of low-denomination coins, how would they be paid? Inevitably, the effort to answer this question would call the token into being. http://www.chicagocoinclub.org/projects/PiN/emt.html
I suggest that you find a copy of George Selgin's "Good Money: Birmingham Button Makers, The Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821. The first chapter, "Britain's Big Problem", will give you a more in-depth and authoritative explanation of why there was a shortage. The info I posted above is not the full story.
Thanks Catbert. In answer to an earlier question; In 1816-17, following the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, there was a significant coinage act which resolved Britain's coin shortage. The coinage was put strictly on the gold standard and the government abandoned all attempts to make the coinage have the same face value as its intrinsic worth. From then on until the end of World War One, only Gold coins would have the same face value as it's intrinsic worth, and all other issues were token coinage. Given the inevitable fluctuation of prices, it's difficult to believe it took them this long to abandon multi-metalism (The old copper cartwheel issues were intended to have the same intrinsic worth of copper as their face value)..
copper coin Actually, although regal copper cioin is supposed to have been rated at its "intrinsick worth" ever since it was first authorized in 1672, copper coins generally had nominal values well in excess of the value of their copper content. The cartwheels were no exception--at least, not when they were first introduced. But the continuing rise in copper's price eventually caused them to loose their fiduciary status--and consequently to be melted down in substantial quantities.
I'll second to recommendation for George Selgin's book "Good Money: Birmingham Button Makers, The Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821". I had the privilege to hear George present at the British-American token conference this past May ant to chat with him later.
Very little, the chronic coin shortages were commonplace long before the French Revolution. The revolution did not begin until 1789 (by which time some 90% of the small coins in circulation were counterfeit) but the coinage of farthings and halfpence, the most needed of the small coins, had ended in 1775, fourteen years earlier. And the 1797, 1799 and 1805-1807 coinages of copper coins were not done by the royal mint either. They were a contract coinage produced by Matthew Boulton. I don't believe the Royal mint coined any copper for domestic use between 1775 and 1840. And some of the public in Britain DID advocate a duplication of the French revolution in England, at least in its early stages. They did NOT advocate The Terror. There are actually Conder tokens that ar pro French revolution. And I will also agree with the advise to get a copy of Good Money. I'm thrilled with my copy and I've read it twice now. A very good book.
Indeed, Thomas Spence and Thomas Paine are two well known agitators, the latter in the American Revolution, some of the French Revolution then in Britain.
