Partial holograph drafts of all three parts of the 'Observations', in no particular order

Considerations \Notes/ \Observations/ upon M^r P. second paper Reply.

pag pa|. 1.|g The assertionts of M^r P. that there\in/ (pag 1\2/) that there was coyned \in silver/ \comm̄ annis/ 4000000^£ p^r an̄ from 1640 to 1660, I do no about 200000^£ p^r an̄ from 1660 to 1680 ab 800 & & or thereabouts & less then 80000^£ p^r an̄ from 1680 to 1695 {illeg} I do not deny, except that allow {illeg}|w.^th| this correction that there was y^e 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. & {illeg} The great coynage in y^e first period arose from the peace between England & Spain while Spain was at warr with F Holland & France in {illeg} y^e reign of Charles 1 0 the, & the small coynage in y^e last period arose from y^e Fren late warr with France. And this appears by comparing the increase & decrease {illeg}|of| {illeg}|y^e| coynage w.^th y^e vicissitudes of peace & warr. The \silver/ coynage w^ch in y^e latter half of the reign of Q. Eliz. contin (after she had recoyned the base money of her predecessors) wa in y^e first five years of King James was {illeg} comminibus annis about \70 or/ 70000|80tho||usand| ^£ \pounds/ p^r an̄. Then upon a cessation of arms between the Dutch & Spaniards it fell suddenly to about 30000^£> {sic} \less then {illeg}|40|000£ / p^r an̄. Afterwards in y^e reign of King Cha upon renewing the warr & a pe making a peace between England Spain & England in|A|. D. 1629 it grew very great|er| & then ever & continued so till about y^e end of y^e|y^t| reign of K. Ch. I w warr t 1648. Then it fell again to the coynage of the gold & silver together being |above| 600000^£ p^r an̄ or above & that of silver alone being about 45|4|0000^£ per an̄. Then it fell again & became but the 8^th or 10^th part of what it had been before & continued so for y^e next 18 years being but about\scarce/ 70000^£ per an̄, {illeg}|t|ill y^e enacting of y^e coynage Duty A 1666 by w^ch & the flourishing of trade in y^e peacefull reigns of CHa. II & Jac. II. \& the quick dispatch of business by paper credit/ notwithstanding our disadvantageous trade w.^th France, it encreased till it became about\above|ut|/ 60|78|0000^£ per an̄. I T And then by the late warr w.^th France it fell again & & y^e consequent decay of \paper/ credit & trade it fell\decreased/ again exceedingly. This agreement between the rise & fall increase & decrease of y^e coynage & the rise & state of the nation in respect of peace & war abroad shews that the quantity of the coynage \has principal{illeg}|ly|{illeg}/ depended on the state of that state of y^e nation so nothing rather then on paper credi w.^thout re And as for credi paper credit And of paper Credit hath had any affect upon y^e coynage it had|s| b|p|romoted it because both grew to increased together till 1690 & then\afterw^ds/ both decreased together by the \late/ French war.

But\For if w.^th/ M^r P. mat\we/ distinguish & the coynage into pounds by certain numbers or years w.^thout regard to the vicissitudes of peace & war recconing one period from <633v> {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{illeg} ascribe it neither to peace nor warr but fancy some other cause.

<634r>

In his former paper he appeals to y^e Mint Acc^ts \as if there had been but a little coynage sine {sic} y^e {illeg}|great| {illeg}\{illeg}/ Credit/ & now he appeals from them as if there had been a great coynage w.^thout any addition to o^er stock And I do not see but that there has been a great addition to o^er 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 $\frac{1}{8}$^th part culled out for melting. If I should say a fift part yet the residue remaining in y^e nation in y^e end of y^e 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 30^s 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 {illeg}|p|^resent about an 8^th 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 |re|coynage of y^e 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 & y^e better half of this was milled money, that being the weightiest, then in d|th|e beginning of y^e year 167|9|0 there was abo{illeg}|ut| st three millions\two millions & an half/ of \milled/ silver monies in the nation. Which added to y^e five millions of gold makes eight\above seven &/ millions \& an half/ of gold & silver together moni{illeg}|e|s coyned in the first 23 years of y^e Coynage Act & remaining in y^e 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 o^er stock as abundantly makes good the argument from y^e coynage in favour of the coynage Act & Paper credit.

Yet M^r P. \(pag. 6)/ upon observing that y^e coynage of both Gold & Silver fell very much soon after the beginning of {y^e} 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 y^e 31^th of March 1664 to (after y^e 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{illeg} hammered money.

There were coyned in the Tower in silver milled monies

<634v>

T|B|y this accompt it appears the|re|coynage were coyned F in y^e first 22 years of y^e Coynage Act from Dec 21 1667 (wher|n| |y^e| coynage Act began to operate) to Dec 21 1689, the summ of 3277256. 3. 2 w^ch (abating |by estimation about half a million| 400000 for y^e wreck (for I have now forgot what it was recconed \how much the{illeg} wreck was valued/ at) is after y^e rate of {illeg}|126|000^£ per an̄ one year w.^th another. And this coynage held w.^thout any great\considerable/ abatement till the beginning of the French warr & then fell at once to th two or three thousand pounds ꝑ an̄

I have heard it represented that in China Gold is esteemed worth about ten times it {sic} 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 ꝑ cent. But if w.^th M^r P. we say that the profit of exporting silver to the Indies rather then gold is but 25 ꝑ 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 co{illeg}|yn|age of silver \of above 120000^£ ꝑ an̄ w^ch is/ more then double to what it had ever been by the ordinary course of trade before y^e growth of paper credit & enacting of y^e coynage Duty. In y^e last seven years of K. James I the silver coynage amounted to 102981.^£ 9^s. 8^d w^ch is after y^e rate of about 15000^£ ꝑ an̄ In y^e 19 years from y^e death of K. Charles I to y^e end of y^e first year of y^e Coynage a|A|ct Dec 23 1667 it amounted to 922945^£ (besides y^e 100000^£ for Dunkirk) & this is after y^e rate of {illeg}|a|lmost 50000^£ ꝑ ^{illeg} an̄. But in the next 22 years by the joynt operaton of y^e Coynage Act & paper credit it amounted one year w.^th another to abov about above 120000{illeg}^£ ꝑ an̄. Which great increase shews that the Mint Accompts w^ch 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 y^e Indies have swept away the greatest part of o^er silver Bullion.

<636r>

Observations on M^r P.^s Reply.

1. On the argument against paper credit \taken/ from the course of the coynage.

M^r P. (pag. 1, 2) \to {illeg}|s|hew 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 an̄ and from 1640 to 1660 200000^£ ꝑ an̄ from 1660 to 1680 & less then 80000^£ ꝑ an̄ from 1680 to 1695. These \assertions/ I dispute not, except that I affirmed the 400000^£ ꝑ an̄ to be not in silver alone but in gold & silver together. But I represented that from this progress\decrease/ of y^e silver coynage nothing could be argued against paper credit, & that for these two reasons

First because the c M^r P. considers not the \whole/ coynage of both gold & silver \together w^ch makes o^er wealth,/ but that of silver alone. For y^e coynage of silver from 1640 to 1660 was much less then greater that|en| that of gold & now is much less & this alteration of the proportion arises not from paper credit but from y^e exportation of great quantities of silver to y^e Indies while o^er gold stays at home, by reason that silver is a better commodity in y^e Indies yⁿ gold. Secondly because

Secondly because the decrease of y^e coynage from 1640 to 1695 was not uniform as M^r P it should seem by M^r P.s way of arguing but had several periods of increasing & decreasing inso according to y^e vicissitudes of peace & war abroad \all/ w^ch M^rP. ought to be distinguished & considered \severally/ before any thin can be concluded from y^e course of the coynage For if the increase & decrease of y^e coynage fro arose from other causes then y^e 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 them\y {sic} course of the coynage/ against paper credit will vanish. For the cou{illeg}|rse| of y^e coynage answered to y^e vicissituded of peace & warr abroad after this manner

The silver coynage in y^e 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 an̄. Then upon a cessation of arms between the Dutch & Spaniards it fell suddenly to less then 40 thousand pounds ꝑ an̄. 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 an̄ & that of both gold & silver together above 6 above 600000^£ ꝑ an̄ Then it fell again & became but y^e 8^th or 10^th part of what it was before & continued f|s|o for y^e next 18 years being scarce 70000^£ per <636v> {an̄} till the enacting of the Coynage Duty 1666 by w^ch and the flo{rishing} of trade in the peacefull reigns of K Charles|II| & James II & the quick dispatch of business by paper credit, notwithstanding o^er disadvantageous trade with France it encreased till it became about 680000^£ ꝑ an̄. 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 y^t state. And if paper{illeg} \{illeg}/ crede|i|t 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 y^e last 17 years of y^e reign of K. James y^e 1^st scarce exceeded 40 or 50 thousand pounds per an̄. In y^e reign of K. Charles y^e 1^st it was {illeg}|i|ncreased \to an/ exceeding \height/ not by y^e ordinary course of trade but by o^er being in peace while o^er neighbours were in war \& supplied themselves with provisions from England for coyning on y^t war. After 1647/. When that war ceased & trade returned to its ordinary course the coynage (w.^thout recconing the \recoyning of the/ Harp & cross money) became but about 68000^£ ꝑ an̄ till one year w.^th another till \the rise & growth of paper credit &/ the enacting of y^e coynage 1666|7|, & then in y^e space of 23 years more by the great encouragement of that Act & the qui encrease of trade \occasioned/ by the quick dispatch of bus\the quick dispatch of business by/ paper credit, the {illeg} coynage grew ten times greater then it was before. And therefore M^r P. in his first paper \seems to have/ set argument in a wrong light when he represented that the coynage had decreased ever since y^e rise & growth of paper credit. For he \there/ considers only the coynage of silver \alone/ & lessens it {illeg}|b|y taking a medium between that coynage in y^e reign of K. Cha. & K. James & that in y^e tim w^ch prece{illeg}|d|ed the French warr & that w^ch was in the warr. Whereas |if| he should hav|d|e considered the whole coynage of both gold & silver & distinguished between times of peace & war, he would have found the argument from y^e coynage to lye in favour of paper credit \& of & & the Coynage Act/ as I have represented it in my former paper.

|pag 8| But M^r P. replies ( pa that if the Coynage Act had tended as |'| much to y^e securing & keeping of o^er Coyn in y^e nation as it did to |'| encourage coynage th{illeg}|e| advantage I ascribe to y^t Coynage Act would |'| have been w.^thout contradiction, but it it|s| well known that y^e success has |'| would have been otherwise, much of the coyn having been melted down |'| & exported & the Act givin so y^t y^e short\little time of its/ circulation scarce made |'| amends for y^e charge of coynage & the Act it self incouraging \the coynage/ of gold |'| several times over, so tha & the merchant to coyn in winter\the dead months of exportation/ what he |'| intended to export in sprin soon after. So that there may be as great coynage |'| w.^thout any addition to o^er stock. To all w^ch I answer {illeg} that Trade like a \T/ river wears its self channels fin|ro|m w^ch it's difficultly\afterwards it cannot easily be/ diverted

That That the designe of the Coynage Act was to derive the channel of gold & silver through the English m|M|int, &\&/ y^t it has had that effect in a notable manner, & that |th|it|s| \Act/ was not designed to precent the melting or exporting <637r> of o^er monies, & therefore is not to be blamed for not preventing it & that y^e quantity of \milled/ monies melted or exported hath been nothing neare so great as M^r P. represents seems to represent. T|M|erchants do not bring to y^e Mint what they intend to export. When Guineas were at 30^s \a pe|i|ece/ they appeared in|ve|ry plentifully|.| in all great payments|In my former paper I recconed about an 8^th part culled out for melting. If I should a 6^t or 4^th part yet the residue would be above 5 millions in 1689|Dec|ember 1689| The milled silver money of K. Cha. & K. James is at p^resent about an eighth part of the whole silver coyn \(as I find by several trials/ & therefore in the time of y^e recoynage of the hammered money amounted to about a million. If in y^e 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 weight|iness| then in December 1689 there was almost 3 millions of silver milled silver monies. Which added to y^e 5 millions of gold makes 8 millions of gold & silver milled monies coyned in y^e first 23 years of y^e Coynage Act & remaining in the nation\specie/ till the year 1689 nesides what was re{illeg}|c|oynd. And this makes me still of opinion that y^e Coynage Act hath been of vast advantage to the nation. I mean in conjunction w.^th Paper Credit. |For both together promoted the coynage till very much exceedingly till the beginning of y^e French war| So then if any argument can be drawn from credit the coynage about credit trade the increase of o^er money by trade (fr M^r P. appeals to it in his first paper) it makes highly\highly/\wholy//absolutely\ in favour of Paper credit.

2. Ofn the Quantity of {illeg} coyne in the nation.

M^r P.

Out of y^e 16 mllions of \standard/ Silver money recconed by M^r P. to \have/ be|en| in y^e nation 1676 about y^e year 1676 I made several abatements, as 1^st of a million or an million & an half of counterfeit money. M^r P. thinks 100000^{£ enough.}\this abatement too much by far & that y^e counterfeit scarce exceeded 100000^£./ I reccon it thus. The five millions melted down in the Excheq^r proved about 7^dwt worse then standard. This worsness arose from false silver money of base allay, & if in y^e 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 15^th part of y^e whole five millions, that is about 333 the third part of a million. There was another sort of \{illeg}|narr|ow/ counterfeit money of base allay made f {illeg} clippings & briad money wihout allay & this being s|o|f standard silver past as currently as if it had been coyned in the Kings mint, & for that reason abounded most in the {illeg} coyn. I reccon it therefore at \above/ $\frac{1}{2}$ a million. The brass money was|bei|ng most discernable was least in quantity. If it be recconed {illeg}\between {illeg} &/ ꝑ cent of y^e whole, it will amount to 70|5|0000^£. So that all y^e counterfeit money in these 5 millions amounted to about|ve| 900000^£. And if all y^e counterfeit money in y^e other 5 millions was but $\frac{1}{2}$ a|o|ne third part as much it\the whole/ will amount to {illeg}\above/ 1200000^£.

2^dly I abated for the wearing of the money & 3^dly for y^e clipping \thereof/ & the abatements were proportional to what I had observed in the some parcells of broad hammered money w^ch had been long hoarded in the country, & \most of it unclipt & the rest/ was|er||e| not so much clipt as to be refused in payments.\before y^e year 1670/ but that above 30 years \ago/ it might be very passible in payments \the clipping scarce appearing to y^e eye without weighing y^e pieces/. The b|a|batements in my computation for the wearing culling washing & filing of y^e milled money \scarce/ amount not to above 1 ꝑ cent.

<637v>

3|4|^thly I\Out of/ The milled money w^ch 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 y^e pound weight in Apr 1 1663 & from that time to the end of December 1676 there was coyned in silver {illeg}|b|y the Mint Acc^ts 1779277.^£ 19^s. 6^d wherof about 20|2|0000^£ was out of cross & harp money. \Out of the three millions/ I should have abated therefore above 1200000^£.

5^tly Out\Instead Out/ of the 3 millions recconed to be melted down out of the broade hammered money since\between after/ the years 1676 I|&| the year 1695 I recconed half a million to be melted down between y^e years I make another abatement For the hammered shillings had one withanother lost about 5 grains a piece by wearing & so were unfit for y^e cullers use as I found out by weighing some parcells of unclipt shillings. These were therefore grown {illeg}|to|o light for y^e cullers trade to be culled out for to be so fit for y^e cullers trade as y^e milled money generally was & the sixpences were grown lighter\more 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. James\half that of K. Cha. I was in shillings & sixpences. The half crowns were scarce a/ third part of \all/ the whole\hammered money/, & therefore in y^e year 1676 scarce exceeded 4 millions. Of thi|e|s|e| {illeg} 4 millions part were hoarded in y^e country & came not to the Gold cullers hand \since 1676/, & part were [culled f{illeg} clipt \either/ before 1676 & part {illeg} 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 \w^thwere|as| culled for clipping & melting it/ would scarce amount to a million, & that third part being {illeg}\in some degree culled before 1/ lightned 6 or 7 grains above 2 p^r cent by wearing would scarce aford\& in some measure culled before 1676 would aford not much/ above half a million so fit for y^e cullers use as y^e mulled money was. |And yet in my former paper I recconed it at a million.|

|4.| In \M^r 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. M^r P I r My recconing was grownded on that O {illeg}|my| own Observations that {illeg} in y^e silver monies now current the old milled money is about an 8^th part of t or 9^th part of the whole. THis Observation I repeated a few days since in a parcell of 25^£ handed to me from y^e Bank in w^ch I found 3^£ 1^s 6^d old milled money. T Hence The old milled money being therefore to y^e new as one to seven, & there being seven million of |y^e| new there can|ou|ld not not {sic} be much less then one \million/ of the old at y^e time of the recoinage when they mixed. So that my recconing holds good.

|p 4| M^r P allows\says 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 an̄ by y^e overballance of trade\brought in from Africa/ & |y^t| the rest has been weighty guineas recoyned without additiō to o^er stock or gold bought with clippins of silver & \saith that/ instead of y^e eight millions in my recconing others reccon only four we have not four mill, I answer that \{illeg}/ o^er silver monies proved double to what it was recconed before y^e 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 y^e \Quantity of/ gold monies We have gold from America as well as from Africa & y^e {illeg} to make up y^e 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 y^e rate of 21.^s 6^d y^e Guinea, the summ of 8902440^£. 18.^s 3^d. Out \Out/ Of this {illeg} Of this \summ/ I recconed an sixt or eight part to be weighty Guineas culled out & sent back to y^e Mint. Let If I should say a 4^th

<638r>

Paper credit \being a sort of riches of the same value w.^th money equipollent to money/ quickens & enlarges trade not only by making dispatch in business but also by \enlarging o^er stock &/ lowering y^e interest /of money.\ M^r 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 y^e rates of letting land. For y^e 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.

M^r P. (sect 25) says further that to lower interest by hav more paper credit is to run doen the value of o^er true|,| coyn by using a false coyne w^ch will prove fatal in y^e end whatever present ease it may give us seemingly give us I answer that the\to/ lower the value of money [ in prootion to that of land & stock & &c] is the only way|is to make all things \whose price depends not on forrein {sic} 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 {sic} raise \r{illeg}s/ the \re{illeg} &/ price of land & |of| its products\& grain & stock &c/ & thereby to enrich the Farmer & Landlord & bring back money from y^e City into the c|C|ountry & make a greater quantity of it necessary \there/ for marketing & paying rents & doing business in the country.\& wages & taxes & g|d|oing |o|their||er {illeg} country business./ And all this tends not to y^e exportation of o^er money to the securing of o^er money from be{illeg}|i|ng exported i{illeg} \So that/ lodging {illeg} I {illeg} & \[And this suplys us w.^th an answer to what/       But its further objected \represented/ {illeg} (sect 25) that unless trade be |is further said| A|a|gainst y^e \lowering of interest &/ enlarging of trade by paper credit its further represented that unless (sect 25) \viz^t/ that if o^er 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, w^ch 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 o^er paper will have a natural tendency to exchange those trades that are carried on by y^e exportation of o^er 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 n{illeg}|o|t a natural way of doing it because it tends to enlarge bad trades w^ch carry out o^er money, & wⁿ y^e 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 \{illeg}/, lowering interest, {illeg} making all things sell well n|s|etting 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. |A|Of|nd| |of| this kind reccons Notes & Bills where a deposit is secured in upon a Standing Bank in w^ch a Deposit \of money/ is secured. And security\And I do not/ |see {that} security| upon land is as so fe & good & the same r\or better/ For a Bank may be seized or|&| {illeg}|ca|rried away <638v> {but} kand is immoveable. But security credit upon Parliamentary funds he calls in question because the Deposit coyn Also\He allows also/ credit upon a Parliamentary Tax he allows {illeg} as a cordial to be used in cases of necessity, provided it exceed not y^e 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 mone{illeg}|y| And s For he says the danger of using paper as money arises not from y^e use of the paper but from y^e misapplication of the Deposit. So then the dispute Argument \Opinion/ is no|t| langer against Paper Credit as such\upon y^e acc^t of its being paper credit/ , \tis not against all pa|ci|rculating paper credit in general/ but against certain\those/ sorts of paper credit not |w^ch are not| grounded upon good security & |so| \the debate/ ends in a question about the about y^e 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 w^ch king\such as/ are excheq^r Bills, Bank Bills of England Bills, Mault Tickets Million Lottery tickets Annuity Tickets &c( is as good as any \any/ other we can if y^e money were in Bank. For Tis safe\For the security is good/ while pub the Governm^t lasts & publick faith lasts & there is but money enough in the nation \circu circulating in y^e 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 seized\being seized {illeg}/ for publick uses \then y^e Bank of England of sinking being dissolved./. Certainly the credit of y^e Bank of England was much better\is safer/ then that of The credit of particular private Bankers \who sometimes break/ & therefore it was well set up. {w^ch}

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 {illeg}\then money {illeg}/ & therefore circulating s|c|redit s|u|pon such security since the danger of using paper \as money/ arises not from the paper use of y^e paper but from the misapplication of the Deposit. But y^e d grand danger is the withdrawn loss of o^er money by exportation [This a|i|s a danger \even/ in a Land Bank where the Deposit is \as/ safe as money in a \money/ Bank.] Paper money\credit/ inclines to Luxury & Luxury exports o^er Silv money, & |therefor|\Must we therefor reject credit?/ Paper money is dangerous \to be rejected/. If \this/ be a good argument we must reject wine because it inclines to/occasions\ drunkenness & \& drunkenness \w^ch/ wasts o^er health./. \We must reject/ all the best things because by corruption or abuse they become the worst. Rather let us abolish\suppress/ drunkenness & keep o^er wine. Bu I

If all o^er paper credit \considered as a sort of riches/ were turned into fold, the\so much/ |the| gold would incline to luxury &\as the credit did before & the/ luxury would export o^er silver, must we therefore {illeg} reject o^er \throw away the/ gold for fear we should want market money? If would\Why should we not rather endeavout to/ grow eichter we by must\keep o^er gold &/|keeping o^er gold &| supporess|ing| luxury|?| & not throw away o^er riches.

\He your/ tho paper credit be a sort of riches {illeg}|w|w must \not/ use it to excess\inmmoderately/ Like vertue it jas its extremes. Too much may hurt us as well as too little. So mu{illeg}|c|h is best for us as suffices to c|l|ower 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 in|b|y inclining the nation too strongly to luxury. What proportion in respect of gold & silver is best for us is a consideration most fir for y^e Legislative power, &|| may vary w.^th circumstances of time to|w^ch may vary with circumstances of time & must be left to experience & seing it| y^e wisdom of y^e legislative power.

<639r>

\But the danger is the loss of o^er money by exportation -/ Paper credit inclines to luxury & luxury exports o^er money, M{illeg} And \this/ argum{ment} holds against\This 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 M^r P. objects against all {illeg}|t|he \circulating in \or/ Engl/ credit in generall in England that unless it & when y^e Deposit is gone the credit fails. For this is true of credit |For| This objection holds\lies/ 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 & y^e security never so good. [Must we therefore reject all o^er credit as pernicious. No sure No sure, for if] But if

<639v>

& trade.✝ < insertion from the middle of the page > ✝ For Markets, payment of\workmens/ 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 acc^t more valuable then Bonds & Morgages. Or to speak more truly tis necessary the life of Trade & without it Trade \languishes &/ n|b|ecomes dead, as at p^resent.

Tis luxury in forreign commodities w^ch aruses occasions Θ exportation of o^er money Let |y^e| luxury be checkt & paper credit will enrich us & keeo o^er money at home: < text from f 639v resumes >

But M^r 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 makin|es|g paper the measure of trade |&| it|| \thereby/ gives advantage to Foreigners to trade w.^th o^er 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 {illeg}ed exported &c &c yet men chuse rather to hoard |their| gold then \to/ export t|e|port it. & the Jewels want circulation & yet are not exported. Tis not y^e want of |y^e| circulation \of o^er silver monies/ but the desire \& consumption/ of forreign commodities {illeg}|wh|ich causes us to export o^er silver to forreign markets & this mischief is not to be remi|e|dies 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.^th money/ the latter M^r P. seems to opposes|s,| For the reasons \upon/ w^ch 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 w^ch 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 in|s| in danger of being withdrawn. For all his reasons center in this tha conclusion that in the paper credit now in use amongst us \{illeg} re{illeg}ers/ {th}e depositum is in danger is not |un|safe & brings the depositum\it/ into danger of being withdrawn, & this is as much as to say that y^e credit is not good. \Now o/ If paper credit or to speak more properly paper security be good &c

Now\And/ 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

<640r>

To

Isaac Newton Esq^re Master & Worker of his Majesties Mint in y^e Tower of                London

<640v>

M^r P. represents that my Deduction of 733300^£ for y^e money coynd after the death of K. C. because it was afterwards recoynd ought not to be allowed. He seems to mistale my meaning w^ch I thus explain. In From 1640 to\✝/ < insertion from the bottom of p 641 >      ^✝ He reccons \b/ y^e coynage \by y^e ordinary course of trade/ from 1640 to 1660 \by y^e ordinary course of Trade/ to be after y^e rate of 400000^£ ꝑ an̄ without considering\observing/ that that {sic} in y^e beginning of y^t {nor}/per\ it was very first 9|8| \or 9/ years of y^t period the coynage was {illeg} much greater it in the last 11 years it was much Smaller. \by reason of y^e Spanish war in the Low countries &/I distinguish therefore y^t 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 y^e Netherlands, & after that war ceased & y^e coynage depended only on y^e ordinary course of trade it became but y^e 10^th part of what it was before. These two periods of y^e coynage he distinguishes not but reduces the whole to a medium of 400000^£ p^r an̄ O{illeg} if as if so much were coyned yearly durin by ordinary course of trade duing the whole 20 years, whereas after y^e Spanish ceased there wa & upō this Hypothesis he argues against paper credit whereas after y^e Spanish war ceased & nothing more was coyned then what in by the overballance of trade the \yearly/ coynage was but about 65000^£ yearly w^ch is but the sixt part of what M^r P. reccons it. To set {the} argument right therefore I {sic} distinguish between the times of the Spanish war & those after it & because the records of y^e coynage of those times are gone out of y^e MInt &|I| collect it as nearly as I can after y^e return of K. C. II was about\almost/ a million & this was all the money coyned \in y^e11$\frac{1}{3}$ years/ between y^e death of K. C. & I & y^e return of K. C. II. was & one yeare w.^th another amounts to about\almost/ 88000^£ p^r an̄. At w^ch rate there was coyned in the first 8$\frac{1}{3}$ years of that period that is till May 1657 almost 733300^£ < text from f 640v resumes > The gold & silver coyned between the death of K. Cha. I & the return of K. Cha. II was about\almost/ a million. For so was recoyned after that return. This amounts to 8 about \that is almost/ 88000^£ per an̄ w^ch makes w^ch \makes/ in y^e first 8$\frac{1}{3}$ years of that time period \that is till May 1657/ abou|lmos|t 73300^£. {illeg} The gold & Silver coyned from the last of March 1638 to May 1657 w^ch according to one of y^e acc^ts mentioned by M^r P. was 7733521^£. 13^s. 4^d$\frac{1}{2}$. Subduct If you subduct the 733300^£ coyned in y^e last 7|8|$\frac{1}{3}$ years thereof there will remain about 7 millions coyned \in the 11 ye|first|ars 10$\frac{5}{6}$ years/ from y^e last of March 1638 to y^e death of K. Ch, II. w^ch cor reAnd \this/ coynage was after the rate of 646000^£ p^r an̄. This So y^t THis \great/ coynage \as I said/ was occasioned by the Spanish wars in y^e Low Countries, Th & so makes nothing to M^r Poluxfins argument against paper credit. He should in th that argument consider only the coynage as it in y^e occasioned by y^e ordinary course of trade. This coynage f in y^e 18 years from y^e death of K Char. I to the maing of y^e coynage Act was an (omitting the recoinage of y^e Harp & Cross money) was only after y^e rate of 868000^£ p^r an̄ but afterwards by the Coynage Act & Paper credit grew from increased gradually so as in y^e compass of 232 years t|m|ore to becom{e} ten times greater then before. Thus the argument from {y^e} Mint w Account of y^e Mint w^ch M^r P. brings against Paper Credit: if it be rightly stated makes exceedingly for it.

|p. 6|M^r P. says that

Upon my observing that the coynage of both \of/ gold & silver fell very much soon after the beginning of y^t later warr, M^r P. represents \it is a thing well known/ that we had coyned but little silver, excepting what came from y^e wreck, for some years before. To w^ch I reply that we had coyned after the growth of paper credit & y^e enacting of y^e 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 a{illeg}|c|count of y^e silver coynage from\every/ 4 years to from from the 31^th of Mar 1664 to y^e beginning of 21^th {sic} of Dec 1695.

<641r>

In y^e last seven years of K James y^e 1 the silver coynage amounted to 12|0|2981^£. 9^s. 8^d w^ch is after y^e rate of 14711.^£ 12^s. 10^d per an̄ In y^e 18|9| years from the Death of K. C. 1 to y^e end of y^e first year of y^e coynage Act it amounted to 922945^£ (besides y^e 100000^£ for Dunkirk) & this is after y^e rate of 48576^£ per an̄. But in y^e next twenty years by the joyn operation of y^e Coynage Act & paper credit it m|a|mounted 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 96372|3|^£ in y^e year 1689 & but 2|1|994^£ in y^e next year but

I have heard it \credibly/ represented that in China Gold is in value equal to about ten times its\esteemed worth about ten times more then its/ weight of Silver, w^ch & that in a parcel b{illeg}\of Gold/ of about 10 or 12^lwt there was a brought from China last Summer the profit was 60 ꝑ^r cent But if \w.^th M^r P. we say that/ y^e profit of exporting silver to y^e Indies bu|is| but 25 p^r cent{illeg} more then that of exporting Gold, & the tis a sufficient encouragement to y^e Merchant to export silver rather then gold & & yet the surplus of their exportations mak|k|e a coynage of\of 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 conage {sic} duty. So then the argument from the Mint Acc^ts w^ch M^r Poluxf P. \principally/ appeals to {illeg}|a|gainst 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 of|^er| 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.

debilis est et parum \minus/ lucidus color p 82 l\27 optimo tubulato{illeg}/ 19|28| vix exced{illeg} 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 S^r.

I Desire y^r fovour of knowing your pleasure Concerning |y^e| 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 ꝑ bearer will Infinitely Oblige                               Your Humble Serv.^t                                    Tho: Kemp