Partial holograph drafts of all three parts of the 'Observations', in no particular order Isaac Newton c. 8,009 words Newton Project London 2019 Newton Project, University of Oxford

This metadata is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

 1701, c. 8,009 words.

Kemp's letter printed in NC, 4: 353-4. 'Tabernacle Accompts' printed in NC, 4: 377-80.

Partly written on the reverse of or blank spaces in:

(a) (Mint 19/2/640r) Thomas Kemp [moneyer] to Newton. 15 February 1700 [= 1701]. Original letter. Another hand [Kemp's?]. On arrangements for the trial of John Crossly [presumably a counterfeiter].

(b) (Mint 19/2/640v-642r) 'The Tabernacle Accompts': holograph accounts for the quarter to Christmas 1700 of the Tabernacle [a chapel of ease of which Newton was one of the trustees 1700-22].

 MINT 19/2/633-41, National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK UKSurreyKew, RichmondNational Archives MINT 19/2/633-41 1701 England English Holograph MintEconomic Theory and Legislation MintCorrespondence Catalogue information compiled by Rob Iliffe, Peter Spargo & John Young Catalogue exported to teiHeader by Michael Hawkins Transcribed by Kees-Jan Schilt
Considerations Notes Observations upon Mr P. second paper Reply.

pag pa. 1.g The assertionts of Mr P. that therein (pag 12) that there was coyned in silver comm̄communibus annis 4000000£ pr an̄per annum from 1640 to 1660, I do no about 200000£ pr an̄per annum from 1660 to 1680 ab 800 & & or thereabouts & less then 80000£ pr an̄per annum from 1680 to 1695 I do not deny, except that allow w.thwith this correction that there was yethe 400000£ was coyned not of silver alone but of gold & silver together. But I shewed in my former paper that this decrease of coynage depended on other causes then paper credit the growth of paper credit. & The great coynage in yethe first period arose from the peace between England & Spain while Spain was at warr with F Holland & France in yethe reign of Charles 1 0 the, & the small coynage in yethe last period arose from yethe Fren late warr with France. And this appears by comparing the increase & decrease of yethe coynage w.thwith yethe vicissitudes of peace & warr. The silver coynage wchwhich in yethe latter half of the reign of Q. Eliz. contin (after she had recoyned the base money of her predecessors) wa in yethe first five years of King James was comminibus annis about 70 or 7000080thousand £ pounds pr an̄per annum. Then upon a cessation of arms between the Dutch & Spaniards it fell suddenly to about 30000£> less then 40000£ pr an̄per annum. Afterwards in yethe reign of King Cha upon renewing the warr & a pe making a peace between England Spain & England inA. D. 1629 it grew very greater & then ever & continued so till about yethe end of yetheytthat reign of K. Ch. I w warr t 1648. Then it fell again to the coynage of the gold & silver together being above 600000£ pr an̄per annum or above & that of silver alone being about 4540000£ per an̄annum. Then it fell again & became but the 8th or 10th part of what it had been before & continued so for yethe next 18 years being but aboutscarce 70000£ per an̄annum, till yethe enacting of yethe coynage Duty A 1666 by wchwhich & the flourishing of trade in yethe peacefull reigns of CHa. II & Jac. II. & the quick dispatch of business by paper credit notwithstanding our disadvantageous trade w.thwith France, it encreased till it became aboutaboveut 60780000£ per an̄annum. I T And then by the late warr w.thwith France it fell again & & yethe consequent decay of paper credit & trade it felldecreased again exceedingly. This agreement between the rise & fall increase & decrease of yethe coynage & the rise & state of the nation in respect of peace & war abroad shews that the quantity of the coynage has principally depended on the state of that state of yethe nation so nothing rather then on paper credi w.thwithout re And as for credi paper credit And of paper Credit hath had any affect upon yethe coynage it hads bpromoted it because both grew to increased together till 1690 & thenafterwdsafterwards both decreased together by the late French war.

ButFor if w.thwith Mr P. matwe distinguish & the coynage into pounds by certain numbers or years w.thwithout regard to the vicissitudes of peace & war recconing one period from 1640 633 1640 to 1660 another from 1660 to 1680 a third from 1680 to 1695 we conformd blend the coynage in times of peace & war together & taking a medium between both we b ascribe it neither to peace nor warr but fancy some other cause.

In his former paper he appeals to yethe Mint AcctsAccounts as if there had been but a little coynage sinesince yethe great Credit & now he appeals from them as if there had been a great coynage w.thwithout any addition to oer stock And I do not see but that there has been a great addition to oer stock as well as a great coynage.

For as for Guineas there could not be above a third part of them fit weighty enough for the culling trade & all Importers did not cull.. In my former paper I recconed about 18th part culled out for melting. If I should say a fift part yet the residue remaining in yethe nation in yethe end of yethe year 1690 would be above 5 millions. And so large a stock of Guineas is confirmed by the plentifull appearance they made in the nation when they were at 30s a piece. And that this culling trade may be no more obkected against the coynage Act, tis now stopt by the exact sizing of the monies.

The milled silver moneys of K. Cha. & K. James is at present about an 8th part of the whole silver coyn (as I find by examining several parcells) when they first mixed with those & therefore in the time of the recoynage of yethe hammered monies when they first mixed with those monies amounted to about a million. If in the six years preceding the recoinage there was about three millions of silver monies exported (as I recconed in my former paper & yethe better half of this was milled money, that being the weightiest, then in dthe beginning of yethe year 16790 there was about st three millionstwo millions & an half of milled silver monies in the nation. Which added to yethe five millions of gold makes eightabove seven & millions & an half of gold & silver together monies coyned in the first 23 years of yethe Coynage Act & remaining in yethe nation till the year 1690 besides what was melted down & recoynd or exported. And tho we should abate a million of this summ yet the remainder would be so great an addition to oer stock as abundantly makes good the argument from yethe coynage in favour of the coynage Act & Paper credit. Yet Mr P. (pag. 6) upon observing that yethe coynage of both Gold & Silver fell very much soon after the beginning of yethe late warr, represents it as a thing well known that we had coyned but very little silver (excepting what came from the wreck,) for some years before And therefor to set right this matter & put it out of dispute I have subjoyned the Mint accompt of the silver coynage for interceding for every four years from yethe 31th of March 1664 to (after yethe recoynage of the Harp & Cross money was ended) to the end of Decemb. 1695. interceding the recoynage of the Harp & Cross money & the late recoynage of the old hammered money.
There were coyned in the Tower in silver milled monies From Mar. 31 1664 to Decem. 21 1667196305£. 13s. 10d From Dec 21 1667 to Decem 21 16731425856. 12. 11 From Dec 21 16731 to Decem 21 16775625860. 19. 01 From Dec 21 16775 tp Decem 1681791044236. 09. 01 From 634 From Dec 21 1679 to Dec 21 1683549620. 14. 00 From Dec 21 1683 to Dec 21 1687458877. 14. 11 {From Dec 21 1687 to Dec 21 168876230. 14. 01 From Dec 21 1688 to Dec 21 1689965702. 19. 01 Total coyned in yethe 26 years before yethe French war3473561. 17. 00 Coyned {from Dec 21 16809 to Dec 21 16901994. 11. 10 From Dec 21 1690 to Dec 21 16913730. 13. 10 From Dec 21 1691 to Dec 21 169513658. 14. 07 Total coyned in the first six years of yethe war19383. 17. 03 TBy this accompt it appears therecoynage were coyned F in yethe first 22 years of yethe Coynage Act from Dec 21 1667 (whern yethe coynage Act began to operate) to Dec 21 1689, the summ of 3277256. 3. 2 wchwhich (abating by estimation about half a million 400000 for yethe wreck (for I have now forgot what it was recconed how much the wreck was valued at) is after yethe rate of 126000£ per an̄annum one year w.thwith another. And this coynage held w.thwithout any greatconsiderable abatement till the beginning of the French warr & then fell at once to th two or three thousand pounds ꝑ an̄per annum I have heard it represented that in China Gold is esteemed worth about ten times itits weight of Silver & that in a parcel of Gold of about 10 or 12 pound weight brought from China last summer the profit was about 60 ꝑper cent. But if w.thwith Mr P. we say that the profit of exporting silver to the Indies rather then gold is but 25 ꝑper cent more then that of exporting gold, tis a sufficient encouragement to the Merchant to export silver rather then gold, & yet the surplus of their large exportations made a coynage of silver of above 120000£ ꝑ an̄per annum wchwhich is more then double to what it had ever been by the ordinary course of trade before yethe growth of paper credit & enacting of yethe coynage Duty. In yethe last seven years of K. James I the silver coynage amounted to 102981.£ 9s. 8d wchwhich is after yethe rate of about 15000£ ꝑ an̄per annum In yethe 19 years from yethe death of K. Charles I to yethe end of yethe first year of yethe Coynage aAct Dec 23 1667 it amounted to 922945£ (besides yethe 100000£ for Dunkirk) & this is after yethe rate of almost 50000£ ꝑper an̄annum. But in the next 22 years by the joynt operaton of yethe Coynage Act & paper credit it amounted one year w.thwith another to abov about above 120000£ ꝑ an̄per annum. Which great increase shews that the Mint Accompts wchwhich P. in his first Paper principally appeals to against Paper credit, makes highly for that credit as well in the Coynage of Silver as in that of Gold, notwithstanding that yethe Indies have swept away the greatest part of oer silver Bullion. Observations on Mr P.s Reply. 1. On the argument against paper credit taken from the course of the coynage. Mr P. (pag. 1, 2) to shew the decrease of the coynage since the rise & growth of paper credit justifies his assertions that there was coyned in silver communibus annis 400000£ ꝑ an̄per annum and from 1640 to 1660 200000£ ꝑ an̄per annum from 1660 to 1680 & less then 80000£ ꝑ an̄per annum from 1680 to 1695. These assertions I dispute not, except that I affirmed the 400000£ ꝑ an̄per annum to be not in silver alone but in gold & silver together. But I represented that from this progressdecrease of yethe silver coynage nothing could be argued against paper credit, & that for these two reasons First because the c Mr P. considers not the whole coynage of both gold & silver together wchwhich makes oer wealth, but that of silver alone. For yethe coynage of silver from 1640 to 1660 was much less then greater thaten that of gold & now is much less & this alteration of the proportion arises not from paper credit but from yethe exportation of great quantities of silver to yethe Indies while oer gold stays at home, by reason that silver is a better commodity in yethe Indies ynthen gold. Secondly because Secondly because the decrease of yethe coynage from 1640 to 1695 was not uniform as Mr P it should seem by Mr P.s way of arguing but had several periods of increasing & decreasing inso according to yethe vicissitudes of peace & war abroad all wchwhich MrP. ought to be distinguished & considered severally before any thin can be concluded from yethe course of the coynage For if the increase & decrease of yethe coynage fro arose from other causes then yethe rise & growth of paper credit, then the argument from them we must not ascribe it to paper credit but to those other causes, & so the argument from themyyethe course of the coynage against paper credit will vanish. For the course of yethe coynage answered to yethe vicissituded of peace & warr abroad after this manner The silver coynage in yethe latter half of Q. Elizabeths reign, (after she had recoyned the base money of her predecessors) & in the first five years of K. James was communibus annis about 70 or 80 thousand pounds ꝑ an̄per annum. Then upon a cessation of arms between the Dutch & Spaniards it fell suddenly to less then 40 thousand pounds ꝑ an̄per annum. Afterwards upon renewing the war & making a peace between England & Spain 1629 it grew gr the greater then ever & continued so till the end of the warr 1648 the silver coynage being about 440000£ ꝑ an̄per annum & that of both gold & silver together above 6 above 600000£ ꝑ an̄per annum Then it fell again & became but yethe 8th or 10th part of what it was before & continued fso for yethe next 18 years being scarce 70000£ per an̄annum 636 an̄annum till the enacting of the Coynage Duty 1666 by wchwhich and the florishing of trade in the peacefull reigns of K CharlesII & James II & the quick dispatch of business by paper credit, notwithstanding oer disadvantageous trade with France it encreased till it became about 680000£ ꝑ an̄per annum. And then by the late war with France & the consequent decay of paper credit & trade it decreased again exceedingly. This agreement between the encrease & decrease of the coynage & the state of the nation in respect of peace & war abroad shews that the coynage has principally depended on ytthat state. And if paper credeit hath had any effect on upon the coynage it has promoted it because both together increased together till 1690 & afterwards both decreased together by the late French war. By the ordinary course of trade the coynage of Gold & silver in yethe last 17 years of yethe reign of K. James yethe 1st scarce exceeded 40 or 50 thousand pounds per an̄annum. In yethe reign of K. Charles yethe 1st it was increased to an exceeding height not by yethe ordinary course of trade but by oer being in peace while oer neighbours were in war & supplied themselves with provisions from England for coyning on ytthat war. After 1647. When that war ceased & trade returned to its ordinary course the coynage (w.thwithout recconing the recoyning of the Harp & cross money) became but about 68000£ ꝑ an̄per annum till one year w.thwith another till the rise & growth of paper credit & the enacting of yethe coynage 16667, & then in yethe space of 23 years more by the great encouragement of that Act & the qui encrease of trade occasioned by the quick dispatch of busthe quick dispatch of business by paper credit, the coynage grew ten times greater then it was before. And therefore Mr P. in his first paper seems to have set argument in a wrong light when he represented that the coynage had decreased ever since yethe rise & growth of paper credit. For he there considers only the coynage of silver alone & lessens it by taking a medium between that coynage in yethe reign of K. Cha. & K. James & that in yethe tim wchwhich preceded the French warr & that wchwhich was in the warr. Whereas if he should havde considered the whole coynage of both gold & silver & distinguished between times of peace & war, he would have found the argument from yethe coynage to lye in favour of paper credit & of & & the Coynage Act as I have represented it in my former paper. pag 8 But Mr P. replies ( pa that if the Coynage Act had tended as ' much to yethe securing & keeping of oer Coyn in yethe nation as it did to ' encourage coynage the advantage I ascribe to ytthat Coynage Act would ' have been w.thwithout contradiction, but it its well known that yethe success has ' would have been otherwise, much of the coyn having been melted down ' & exported & the Act givin so ytthat yethe shortlittle time of its circulation scarce made ' amends for yethe charge of coynage & the Act it self incouraging the coynage of gold ' several times over, so tha & the merchant to coyn in winterthe dead months of exportation what he ' intended to export in sprin soon after. So that there may be as great coynage ' w.thwithout any addition to oer stock. To all wchwhich I answer that Trade like a T river wears its self channels finrom wchwhich it's difficultlyafterwards it cannot easily be diverted That That the designe of the Coynage Act was to derive the channel of gold & silver through the English mMint, && ytthat it has had that effect in a notable manner, & that thits Act was not designed to precent the melting or exporting of oer of oer monies, & therefore is not to be blamed for not preventing it & that yethe quantity of milled monies melted or exported hath been nothing neare so great as Mr P. represents seems to represent. TMerchants do not bring to yethe Mint what they intend to export. When Guineas were at 30s a peiece they appeared invery plentifully. in all great paymentsIn my former paper I recconed about an 8th part culled out for melting. If I should a 6t or 4th part yet the residue would be above 5 millions in 1689December 1689 The milled silver money of K. Cha. & K. James is at present about an eighth part of the whole silver coyn (as I find by several trials & therefore in the time of yethe recoynage of the hammered money amounted to about a million. If in yethe six preceding years there was about 3 millions of silver monies exported (as I recconed in my former paper & the better half of this was milled money (that being the weightiness then in December 1689 there was almost 3 millions of silver milled silver monies. Which added to yethe 5 millions of gold makes 8 millions of gold & silver milled monies coyned in yethe first 23 years of yethe Coynage Act & remaining in the nationspecie till the year 1689 nesides what was recoynd. And this makes me still of opinion that yethe Coynage Act hath been of vast advantage to the nation. I mean in conjunction w.thwith Paper Credit. For both together promoted the coynage till very much exceedingly till the beginning of yethe French war So then if any argument can be drawn from credit the coynage about credit trade the increase of oer money by trade (fr Mr P. appeals to it in his first paper) it makes highlyhighlywholyabsolutely in favour of Paper credit. 2. Ofn the Quantity of coyne in the nation. Mr P. Out of yethe 16 mllions of standard Silver money recconed by Mr P. to have been in yethe nation 1676 about yethe year 1676 I made several abatements, as 1st of a million or an million & an half of counterfeit money. Mr P. thinks 100000£ enough.this abatement too much by far & that yethe counterfeit scarce exceeded 100000£. I reccon it thus. The five millions melted down in the ExcheqrExchequer proved about 7dwt worse then standard. This worsness arose from false silver money of base allay, & if in yethe pieces of base allay taken one with another there be be one half was silver fine silver the base money was about y must have been about y 15th part of yethe whole five millions, that is about 333 the third part of a million. There was another sort of narrow counterfeit money of base allay made f clippings & briad money wihout allay & this being sof standard silver past as currently as if it had been coyned in the Kings mint, & for that reason abounded most in the coyn. I reccon it therefore at above 12 a million. The brass money wasbeing most discernable was least in quantity. If it be recconed between & ꝑper cent of yethe whole, it will amount to 7050000£. So that all yethe counterfeit money in these 5 millions amounted to aboutve 900000£. And if all yethe counterfeit money in yethe other 5 millions was but 12 aone third part as much itthe whole will amount to above 1200000£. 2dly I abated for the wearing of the money & 3dly for yethe clipping thereof & the abatements were proportional to what I had observed in the some parcells of broad hammered money wchwhich had been long hoarded in the country, & most of it unclipt & the rest wasere not so much clipt as to be refused in payments.before yethe year 1670 but that above 30 years ago it might be very passible in payments the clipping scarce appearing to yethe eye without weighing yethe pieces. The babatements in my computation for the wearing culling washing & filing of yethe milled money scarce amount not to above 1 ꝑper cent. 637 34thly IOut of The milled money wchwhich in 1676 he reccons at three millions was I abated above a million. For by the Mint accounts Guineas began to be coyned at 44 to yethe pound weight in Apr 1 1663 & from that time to the end of December 1676 there was coyned in silver by the Mint AcctsAccounts 1779277.£ 19s. 6d wherof about 2020000£ was out of cross & harp money. Out of the three millions I should have abated therefore above 1200000£. 5tly OutInstead Out of the 3 millions recconed to be melted down out of the broade hammered money sincebetween after the years 1676 I& the year 1695 I recconed half a million to be melted down between yethe years I make another abatement For the hammered shillings had one withanother lost about 5 grains a piece by wearing & so were unfit for yethe cullers use as I found out by weighing some parcells of unclipt shillings. These were therefore grown too light for yethe cullers trade to be culled out for to be so fit for yethe cullers trade as yethe milled money generally was & the sixpences were grown lightermore worne still in proportion to their weight. All the money of Q. Eliz && almost all of that of K. James I was & in shillings & sixpences except a very few half crowns of K. Jameshalf that of K. Cha. I was in shillings & sixpences. The half crowns were scarce a third part of all the wholehammered money, & therefore in yethe year 1676 scarce exceeded 4 millions. Of thiese 4 millions part were hoarded in yethe country & came not to the Gold cullers hand since 1676, & part were [culled f clipt either before 1676 & part or afterwards & [if the rest notwithstanding the wearing would aff afford a third part weighty enough for melting] if a third part of the rest wthwithwereas culled for clipping & melting it would scarce amount to a million, & that third part being in some degree culled before 1 lightned 6 or 7 grains above 2 pr cent by wearing would scarce aford& in some measure culled before 1676 would aford not much above half a million so fit for yethe cullers use as yethe mulled money was. And yet in my former paper I recconed it at a million. 4. In Mr P. thinks that we have not half so much old milled money now in being as I recconed in my computations sect. 10, 11, 12. Mr P I r My recconing was grownded on that O my own Observations that in yethe silver monies now current the old milled money is about an 8th part of t or 9th part of the whole. THis Observation I repeated a few days since in a parcell of 25£ handed to me from yethe Bank in wchwhich I found 3£ 1s 6d old milled money. T Hence The old milled money being therefore to yethe new as one to seven, & there being seven million of yethe new there canould not not be much less then one million of the old at yethe time of the recoinage when they mixed. So that my recconing holds good. p 4 Mr P allowssays it is agreed that we have coyned since 1660 about 8 millions of Guineas, but thinks that by the overballance of Trade there has been only coyned 60 or 80 thousand pounds ꝑ an̄per annum by yethe overballance of tradebrought in from Africa & ytthat the rest has been weighty guineas recoyned without additiō to oer stock or gold bought with clippins of silver & saith that instead of yethe eight millions in my recconing others reccon only four we have not four millmillion, I answer that oer silver monies proved double to what it was recconed before yethe recoynage, & I some may err as much in their recconing about the gold so I & if we reccon the gold by the error may be as great in voting about yethe Quantity of gold monies We have gold from America as well as from Africa & yethe to make up yethe ballance of trade we have Pistoles from France & Spain Lewidors from France & Ducats from Holland & Germany. Tis certain by the Mint Accounts that there was coyned in Guineas till Decem 31 1699 at yethe rate of 21.s 6d yethe Guinea, the summ of 8902440£. 18.s 3d. Out Out Of this Of this summ I recconed an sixt or eight part to be weighty Guineas culled out & sent back to yethe Mint. Let If I should say a 4th part Paper credit being a sort of riches of the same value w.thwith money equipollent to money quickens & enlarges trade not only by making dispatch in business but also by enlarging oer stock & lowering yethe interest of money. Mr P. (sect 25) replies, that all arguments for the running down of interest are usually popular & plausible but the reasons that are given for it in my paper, viz that it will encourage trade may also be as good for limiting yethe rates of letting land. For yethe having provisions cheap may as mich encourage trade as the having of money cheap. To all which I answer that if provisions be cheap - - - - - - most to be regarded. Mr P. (sect 25) says further that to lower interest by hav more paper credit is to run doen the value of oer true, coyn by using a false coyne wchwhich will prove fatal in yethe end whatever present ease it may give us seemingly give us I answer that theto lower the value of money [ in prootion to that of land & stock & &c] is the only wayis to make all things whose price depends not on forreinforreign markets still well, Tis & to set all hands on work grain & by mending the price of their labours, Tis to same thing as & hurts no body but them that have nothing but money to let or sell. Tis to to raise rs the re & price of land & of its products& grain & stock &c & thereby to enrich the Farmer & Landlord & bring back money from yethe City into the cCountry & make a greater quantity of it necessary there for marketing & paying rents & doing business in the country.& wages & taxes & gdoing otheirer country business. And all this tends not to yethe exportation of oer money to the securing of oer money from being exported i So that lodging I & [And this suplys us w.thwith an answer to what But its further objected represented (sect 25) that unless trade be is further said Aagainst yethe lowering of interest & enlarging of trade by paper credit its further represented that unless (sect 25) vizt that if oer coyn be carried out while we are But its further r using of paper we may pay dear for it hereafter; for the want of coyn will advance the rates of interest, there being no true natural way to keep interest low but by having plenty of coyn, wchwhich we cannot be certain will be obteined by a large trade; for unless trade be good as well as great it may happen with a nation as with particular men that are often undone by enlarging their trades too far. The increase of oer paper will have a natural tendency to exchange those trades that are carried on by yethe exportation of oer coyn or Bullion, but how it can encourage any trade that will bring in Bullion should be made out before we make any addition to the paper credit we have. All this is as much as to say that paper credit may lower interest but is not a natural way of doing it because it tends to enlarge bad trades wchwhich carry out oer money, & wnwhen yethe money is gone the want of it will advance the rates of interest. I answer that Paper credit by lowering interest doing the business of money , lowering interest, making all things sell well nsetting all hands at work & work & making & quick dispatch in all great business By all this he allows paper credit wherever the security us good & so far I agree with him. AOfnd of this kind reccons Notes & Bills where a deposit is secured in upon a Standing Bank in wchwhich a Deposit of money is secured. And securityAnd I do not see that security upon land is as so fe & good & the same ror better For a Bank may be seized or& carried away but 638 but kand is immoveable. But security credit upon Parliamentary funds he calls in question because the Deposit coyn AlsoHe allows also credit upon a Parliamentary Tax he allows as a cordial to be used in cases of necessity, provided it exceed not yethe tax & be discharged when the Tax money comes in. But credit upon standit credit upon p Acts of Parliament where a deposit But xredit where a Deposit is not secured he disallows & compares it to coun bad money And s For he says the danger of using paper as money arises not from yethe use of the paper but from yethe misapplication of the Deposit. So then the dispute Argument Opinion is not langer against Paper Credit as suchupon yethe acctaccount of its being paper credit , tis not against all pacirculating paper credit in general but against certainthose sorts of paper credit not wchwhich are not grounded upon good security & so the debate ends in a question about the about yethe security of this or that sort of credit whether it be good or not. And I do not see but publ P credit upon Parliamentary funds (of wchwhich kingsuch as are excheqrexchequer Bills, Bank Bills of England Bills, Mault Tickets Million Lottery tickets Annuity Tickets &c( is as good as any any other we can if yethe money were in Bank. For Tis safeFor the security is good while pub the GovernmtGovernment lasts & publick faith lasts & there is but money enough in the nation circu circulating in yethe nation to pay Taxes & when those things fail so sweet a morsel as a Bank of money is a sweet morsel would be in danger of being seizedbeing seized for publick uses then yethe Bank of England of sinking being dissolved.. Certainly the credit of yethe Bank of England was much betteris safer then that of The credit of particular private Bankers who sometimes break & therefore it was well set up. wchwhich The credit of particular Merchants is more apt to fail & yet it must be tenderly dealt with because the life of their trade. There is no Deposit saf I know of no security better then that upon land. Tis a Deposit the more unapt to be withdrawn then money & therefore circulating scredit supon such security since the danger of using paper as money arises not from the paper use of yethe paper but from the misapplication of the Deposit. But yethe d grand danger is the withdrawn loss of oer money by exportation [This ais a danger even in a Land Bank where the Deposit is as safe as money in a money Bank.] Paper moneycredit inclines to Luxury & Luxury exports oer Silv money, & thereforMust we therefor reject credit? Paper money is dangerous to be rejected. If this be a good argument we must reject wine because it inclines tooccasions drunkenness & & drunkenness wchwhich wasts oer health.. We must reject all the best things because by corruption or abuse they become the worst. Rather let us abolishsuppress drunkenness & keep oer wine. Bu I If all oer paper credit considered as a sort of riches were turned into fold, theso much the gold would incline to luxury &as the credit did before & the luxury would export oer silver, must we therefore reject oer throw away the gold for fear we should want market money? If wouldWhy should we not rather endeavout to grow eichter we by mustkeep oer gold &keeping oer gold & supporessing luxury? & not throw away oer riches. He your tho paper credit be a sort of riches ww must not use it to excessinmmoderately Like vertue it jas its extremes. Too much may hurt us as well as too little. So much is best for us as suffices to clower interest; make dispatch in business & in set the people on work & inspire life & vigour into all the busy part of the nation & more then this may be of ill consequence inby inclining the nation too strongly to luxury. What proportion in respect of gold & silver is best for us is a consideration most fir for yethe Legislative power, & may vary w.thwith circumstances of time towchwhich may vary with circumstances of time & must be left to experience & seing it yethe wisdom of yethe legislative power. But the danger is the loss of oer money by exportation - Paper credit inclines to luxury & luxury exports oer money, M And this argumment holds againstThis is true of credit upon Land Banks as well as against &be the security never so good & on all sorts of funds whatever except wher beside money Banks, be be the deposition never so safe. Must we therefore reject all credit whatever where the money security is not a Bank of money? If this be a good argument But Mr P. objects against all the circulating in or Engl credit in generall in England that unless it & when yethe Deposit is gone the credit fails. For this is true of credit For This objection holdslies not only against credit upon Parliamentary funds but against credit upon land or any thing else but money in a Bank be the depositiō never so safe & yethe security never so good. [Must we therefore reject all oer credit as pernicious. No sure No sure, for if] But if 639 & trade.✝ ✝ For Markets, payment ofworkmens wages & all petty expenses silver is the most usefull & will always have a circulation. For In larger payments gold makes more dispatch But& paper security is best for in trade & all great busin still more. Tis fittest for dispatch in all Trade & all great business & on that acctaccount more valuable then Bonds & Morgages. Or to speak more truly tis necessary the life of Trade & without it Trade languishes & nbecomes dead, as at present. Tis luxury in forreign commodities wchwhich aruses occasions Θ exportation of oer money Let yethe luxury be checkt & paper credit will enrich us & keeo oer money at home: But Mr P. (sect 21, 22, 23, 24) represents that credit by circulating does the business of money & thereby makes money useless & sete it at liberty to be exported & discourages incourages the exportation of it to make profit of it abroad & discourages the bringing it in to be coyned & kept here, & that by it makinesg paper the measure of trade & it thereby gives advantage to Foreigners to trade w.thwith oer paper & carry off what they get in coyn. To which I answer that the same arguments lye against a standing the circulation of silver. For by circulating it sets gold make gold useless ,(a much more precious metal then its self,) & sets it at liberty to be ed exported &c &c yet men chuse rather to hoard their gold then to export teport it. & the Jewels want circulation & yet are not exported. Tis not yethe want of yethe circulation of oer silver monies but the desire & consumption of forreign commodities which causes us to export oer silver to forreign markets & this mischief is not to be remiedies by abolishing paper credit. at all. The first may properly be called good paper security the latter paper credit The first I defend as of equal value w.thwith money the latter Mr P. seems to opposess, For the reasons upon wchwhich he gives write condemns it & compares it to counterfeit money are it all terminate in this that it is not founded upon a safe depositum. .& compares to counterfeit money For tho he writes against paper credit in general yet by the reasons wchwhich he brings against it he every where explains himself that by paper credit he understands not good paper security but only the or security founded on a sufficient & secure depositum depositum or pledge of sufficient value but such cre such paper credit where there wants a depositum or where the depositum ins in danger of being withdrawn. For all his reasons center in this tha conclusion that in the paper credit now in use amongst us reers the depositum is in danger is not unsafe & brings the depositumit into danger of being withdrawn, & this is as much as to say that yethe credit is not good. Now o If paper credit or to speak more properly paper security be good &c NowAnd So where he compares paper credit to counterfeit money he understands not good paper security but speakes of paper credit where the depositum is in danger of being withdrawn & therefore understands not good paper security.. If paper credit or to speak more properly paper security be good &c To Isaac Newton EsqreEsquire Master & Worker of his Majesties Mint in yethe Tower of London 640 Mr P. represents that my Deduction of 733300£ for yethe money coynd after the death of K. C.King Charles because it was afterwards recoynd ought not to be allowed. He seems to mistale my meaning wchwhich I thus explain. In From 1640 to✝ ✝ He reccons b yethe coynage by yethe ordinary course of trade from 1640 to 1660 by yethe ordinary course of Trade to be after yethe rate of 400000£ ꝑ an̄per annum without consideringobserving that that in yethe beginning of ytthat norper it was very first 98 or 9 years of ytthat period the coynage was much greater it in the last 11 years it was much Smaller. by reason of yethe Spanish war in the Low countries &I distinguish therefore ytthat To find out how much was coyned in those two periods I this reccon. In The Gold very great by means of the Spanish war in yethe Netherlands, & after that war ceased & yethe coynage depended only on yethe ordinary course of trade it became but yethe 10th part of what it was before. These two periods of yethe coynage he distinguishes not but reduces the whole to a medium of 400000£ pr an̄per annum O if as if so much were coyned yearly durin by ordinary course of trade duing the whole 20 years, whereas after yethe Spanish ceased there wa & upō this Hypothesis he argues against paper credit whereas after yethe Spanish war ceased & nothing more was coyned then what in by the overballance of trade the yearly coynage was but about 65000£ yearly wchwhich is but the sixt part of what Mr P. reccons it. To set the argument right therefore I distinguish between the times of the Spanish war & those after it & because the records of yethe coynage of those times are gone out of yethe MInt &I collect it as nearly as I can after yethe return of K. C.King Charles II was aboutalmost a million & this was all the money coyned in yethe1113 years between yethe death of K. C.King Charles & I & yethe return of K. C.King Charles II. was & one yeare w.thwith another amounts to aboutalmost 88000£ pr an̄per annum. At wchwhich rate there was coyned in the first 813 years of that period that is till May 1657 almost 733300£ The gold & silver coyned between the death of K. Cha.King Charles I & the return of K. Cha.King Charles II was aboutalmost a million. For so was recoyned after that return. This amounts to 8 about that is almost 88000£ per an̄annum wchwhich makes wchwhich makes in yethe first 813 years of that time period that is till May 1657 aboulmost 73300£. The gold & Silver coyned from the last of March 1638 to May 1657 wchwhich according to one of yethe acctsaccounts mentioned by Mr P. was 7733521£. 13s. 4d12. Subduct If you subduct the 733300£ coyned in yethe last 7813 years thereof there will remain about 7 millions coyned in the 11 yefirstars 1056 years from yethe last of March 1638 to yethe death of K. Ch,King Charles II. wchwhich cor reAnd this coynage was after the rate of 646000£ pr an̄per annum. This So ytthat THis great coynage as I said was occasioned by the Spanish wars in yethe Low Countries, Th & so makes nothing to Mr Poluxfins argument against paper credit. He should in th that argument consider only the coynage as it in yethe occasioned by yethe ordinary course of trade. This coynage f in yethe 18 years from yethe death of K Char.King Charles I to the maing of yethe coynage Act was an (omitting the recoinage of yethe Harp & Cross money) was only after yethe rate of 868000£ pr an̄per annum but afterwards by the Coynage Act & Paper credit grew from increased gradually so as in yethe compass of 232 years tmore to become ten times greater then before. Thus the argument from yethe Mint w Account of yethe Mint wchwhich Mr P. brings against Paper Credit: if it be rightly stated makes exceedingly for it. p. 6Mr P. says that Upon my observing that the coynage of both of gold & silver fell very much soon after the beginning of ytthat later warr, Mr P. represents it is a thing well known that we had coyned but little silver, excepting what came from yethe wreck, for some years before. To wchwhich I reply that we had coyned after the growth of paper credit & yethe enacting of yethe coynage Duty we coyned more silver then ever we did before by the ordinary ballance of trade alone & this great coynage of silver continued till the b very beginning of the French war & then ceased on a sudden by the war. For proof of this I have subjoyned an account of yethe silver coynage fromevery 4 years to from from the 31th of Mar 1664 to yethe beginning of 21thst of Dec 1695. There was coyned in silver monies} from Mar There were coyned in silver monies fromMar 31 16964 to Decem 21 1667 -196305.£ 12.s 10d fromDec 21 1667 to Dec 21 1671425856. 12 .11 fromDec 21 1671 to Dec 21 1675625860. 19. 01 fromDec 21 1675 to Dec 21 16791044236. 09. 01 fromDec 21 1679 to Dec 21 1683549620. 14. 00 fromDec 21 1683 to Dec 21 1687458877. 14. 11 {fromDec 21 1687 to Dec 21 168876230. 14. 01 fromDec 21 1688 to Dec 21 168996572. 19. 01 fromDec 21 1689 to Dec 21 16901994. 11. 10 fromDec 21 1690 to Dec 21 16913730. 13. 10 fromDec 21 1691 to Dec 21 169513658. 10. 19 In 2777256 2524678 126239 2292259£. 154s 11d 141 332223 3473561. 17. 00 196305 13. 10 3277256. 3. 2 297932. 7. 634 19 2860000 260000 In yethe last seven years of K James yethe 1 the silver coynage amounted to 1202981£. 9s. 8d wchwhich is after yethe rate of 14711.£ 12s. 10d per an̄annum In yethe 189 years from the Death of K. C.King Charles 1 to yethe end of yethe first year of yethe coynage Act it amounted to 922945£ (besides yethe 100000£ for Dunkirk) & this is after yethe rate of 48576£ per an̄annum. But in yethe next twenty years by the joyn operation of yethe Coynage Act & paper credit it mamounted ye one year after another to above double that summ yearly & continued so till the b very beginning of the late war with France & then ceased at once there being coyned 963723£ in yethe year 1689 & but 21994£ in yethe next year but I have heard it credibly represented that in China Gold is in value equal to about ten times itsesteemed worth about ten times more then its weight of Silver, wchwhich & that in a parcel bof Gold of about 10 or 12lwt there was a brought from China last Summer the profit was 60 ꝑperr cent But if w.thwith Mr P. we say that yethe profit of exporting silver to yethe Indies buis but 25 prper cent more then that of exporting Gold, & the tis a sufficient encouragement to yethe Merchant to export silver 641 silver rather then gold & & yet the surplus of their exportations makke a coynage ofof silver more then double to what it had ever been before by the ordinary course of trade before the growth of paper credit & enacting of the conagecoynage duty. So then the argument from the Mint AcctsAccounts wchwhich Mr Poluxf P. principally appeals to against Paper Credit holds makes highly for that Credit as well in the Coynage of silver a sin that of Gold. And ye Very great complaints have been made by t against the East India trade for impoverishing b the nation by exporting ofer silver & yet Paper credit & the Coynage Act operated so strongly for enriching the nation that as to bring in more silver then the East India Trade carried out by an excess twi above twice as great as e above double to what was ever brought in before by trade alone. 8902440. 18. 3 1780488. 3. 8 7121952. 15 .76 19200000. 0. 0 12500000. 0. 0 882 debilis est et parum minus lucidus color p 82 l27 optimo tubulato 1928 vix exced 2'' 45'''. ib. l 29 optimo tubulato p 83 l. 3. 6'' aut 8''. ib l 6 pro evanescet scribe minuetur p 83 l 8 dele Quam porro &c & scribe. Q Foiver London Feb. 15th 1700. Worthy Sr. I Desire yryour fovour of knowing your pleasure Concerning yethe Tryall of John Crossly whether you please to be at it, and whether John Sutcliff is bound to Appeare against the said Crossly, I being fearfull Sutcliff will not except he be allready tide to it And Answer ꝑper bearer will Infinitely Oblige Your Humble Serv.tServant Tho: Kemp