Draft of MINT00619 (Mint 19/2/322)

<353r>

Observations upon the Estimate of coyning 1500 Tunns the neat profit of coyning 1500 Tunns of Copper into half pence & farthings.

Obs. 1. In the last coynage of copper money an hundred tunns per an̄ in six years made a great complaint in Parliament whereby the coynage was stopt one yeare\all/ the seventh year by reason of too great a quantity of copper money & after the coynage of another hundred Tunns the nation was fully stockt during the next five or six years. Therefore six or seven hundred Tunns is abundantly sufficient to stock the nation & a coynage of 1500 Tunns in five years is not practicable by reason of the clamours it would make amongst the people. At present there want not above an 100 Tonns in all.

Obs. 2. If a pound weigh of copper be cut into 20^d, a Tonn in coyn will amount unto only 186^£ 13^s. 4^d. It must be cut into 21|2|^d that a Tonn may make 205^£. 6^s. 8^d. [If the copper be worth only 10^d per £w^t & y^e melting & whole coynage can be done for 35^£ per Tonn & the \copper/ money exchanged for 11^£ per Tonn: apound weight ought to be cut into no more then 15^d or 15$\frac{1}{4}$|$\frac{1}{2}$|^d, {illeg} the farthing\half penny/ being allowe|e|{d} for hous-rent & \Clerks & charges of/ setting up up a Mint. \& incidents./ For the money should be coyned as neare as can be to their to y^e intrinsic value as neare as can be conveniently. {illeg} Or if a profit be made it should go to her Ma^ty.]

Obs. 3. Copper of 10^d p^{r £wt}w^t is too coarse; Casting drawing cutting flatting scouring neala|i|ng blanching dying & coyning cannot be done for 35^£ per Tonn [There is nothing set down for the Graver & Smith, nor for providing coyning tools.] And 11^£ per Tonn for changing the copper money is something too much. [And there is no assay mentioned by w^ch to|h|e goodness of the Copper may be Obs 4.] ascertained. To compare it w^th a speciment is a slipery way of judging]‡

< insertion from the bottom of the page >

‡ In coyning the last coynage of copper money, the melting\5^d p^r lw^t was allowed \by the Patentees to the M^r/ for/ casting drawing cutting flatting scouring nealing blanching dryin & coyning & for the Master & Work Master & Worker the Graver & the Smith, &\including the work of the graver & Smith. T{illeg}|he|re was alo/ 40^s per Tonn for\{illeg} allowed to/ a Comptroller. And if $\frac{3}{4}$ o\7^£ {illeg}|6| {illeg}|8| per Tonn/ be allowed for putting off, the whole charge including th{illeg}|e| charge price of y^e copper at 10^d per Lw^t will amount to \about/ 16^d per lw^t w^ch ded{illeg}|u|cted from 22^d per lw^t leaves a profit of 6^d per lw^t. And this profit in coyning 1500 TOnns will amount|s| to 84000^£ out of w^ch something is to\may/ be abated for incidents &\housrent clerks/ coyning tools & incidents < text from f 353r resumes >

Obs. 4. He that assays & sizes & coyns the copper money should not be impowered to make any profit by coyning it too light or too coarse, & therefore should have nothing to do with buying or providing the copper or distributing it to the people \by tale/, but should only receive it by weight {illeg}|&| assay & deliver it back \in money/ by weight & assay, & have it in his power to refuse bad copper. The best assay of fine copper is by hammering it when red hot & bending it when cold, & observing the grain in breaking as is done at the Copper mills.

Obs. 5. My Lord Treasurer is desirous to have the money \made/ of fine \Copper/ & if it shall be of the same fineness with the Copper money of Sweden, the Copper must be made into Fillets at the Battering Mills \or Drawing Mills./. For Copper of that degree of fineness will not \easily/ be \easily/ manufactored by casting. [The best assay of \such/ fine Copper is by hammering it when red hot & bending it when cold & observing the grain in breaking as is done by the refiners of copper.]

Obs. 6. There should be a method of assay

<353v>

To give the reader a tast of their plainness I beg the favour of you to p{illeg}\translate/ print \& print/ in your journal & transactions \the letters/ of M^r James Gregori|y|es Letter of\dated/ 15 Feb 17|6|71 to the words in locis impaubus, the two Letters\secundum vulgaris Algebræ{illeg} those/ \præceptor & those/ of M^r Leibnitz dated 15 July & 26 Octob. 1674 |of| M^r Oldenburgs letter dated 15 Apr 1675, |& of| M^r Leibnitz answer \Letters/ dated 20 May 1675\1675/ & 28 Decem 1675, & 12 May 1676, & leave it to the Reader to make his own Observations upon them, & that paragraph of his Letter dated 27 Aug 1676 w^ch begins with the words Sit QA1F Sector duabus rectis &c & ends with the words maxime  afficiens mentem: And leave it to the Reader to make his own remarks upon them. // And Then let him read the Analysis per æquationes Numero terminorum infinitas {illeg}|&| M^r Newtons Letters of 10 Decemb. 1672, & 13 June & 24 Octob. 1676 & see if he cannot find the method of fluxions therein in them {illeg} together w^th the 5^th Proposition of the Book of Quadratures taken deduced from that Method|.| of fluxions. And then let him compare the \differential/ methods of Tangents of D^r Barrow & \published 17|6|70 & that of/ M^r Leibnits with one another/set down in his Letter of {illeg}|2|1 June. 1677\ & see if they be not the same, & if M^r Leibnitz hath added any \thing/ more to that method then what he had notice of in\the differential of D^r Barrow then what/ M^r Newton in his Letters above mentioned gave him notice of. Let every man consult the Records themselves & form a|his| judgment from thence

If M^r Leibnitz has any evidence to prove that he had the differential method before the year 1677 or the series of Gregory before he received it from M^r Oldenburg, or any of his other pretended inventions before he received them from other men, he may deserve to be heard. But if he goes on to refu question the candor of other men without proving his accusations if he \against them/ & \at the same time to/ insists upon his own candor as if it were injustice to question it; If he will bot acknowledge\acknowledge/ when & by wa|h|at means he found his differential method; If he still \goes on to/ puts his correspondents in Germany upon publishing defamatory libels & {illeg} endeavours to lay\papers without a name &/ by sucg \indirect/ means endeavours to lay\set/ aside records w^ch make against him & bring the matter to a wrangle: t{illeg}|his| \noisy vainglorious help to/ carriage will convict him of the want of candour & justice this \sort of/ carriage will make it needles to mind him any further.

But M^r But M^r Leibnitz will give no reasons nor suffer but deb calls it injustice to question his candor & therefore keep pretends that he has reasons for himself w^ch he is not minded to produce & is unwilling to let it be examined. & complains of everybody that questions it without hearing his \pretended/ reasons which he will not produce. If he has any evidence to prove that he had y^e Differential method before y^e year 1677 or the series of Gregory before he received it from Oldenburg, or any of his other pretended inventions before he received them from other ma|e|n, he may produce them But if he goes on will not acknowledge when & by what means he found his differen\ntial method, nor {illeg}/ if he goes on to question the candor of every body that's against him & {illeg} without proving his accusations & to insist upon his own candor as if it were injustice to question it \& pretend to reasons w^ch he will not suffer to be examined/. If he goes on to put his correspondents up in Germany upon publishing defamatory papers without a name & thereby endeavours to set aside records

But because he insists upon\M^r Leibn. began these disputes &/ questions the candeor of every body that's against him & insists upon his own candor as if it were injustice to question it I\& has referred the matter to a nameless Mathematician of his own chusing w^ch is the/ \same thing as to refer it to himself, I/ desire you to translate & publish a translation of M^r Gregories Letter of 15 Febr. 1671, \to the words in locis impasemur in locis imparibus. all & all/ M^r O{illeg}|l|denburghs Letter of 15 Apr. 1675 & M^r Leibnitz's two Letters\answer/ of 20^th May 1675. And {illeg} 12 May 1676 And because M^r Leibnitz in these two Letters represents that M^r {illeg} the Quad the series for squaring the circle by expressing the relation between the arc & the tangent. Then publish the seri \Then add/ the two Letters of M^r Leibnitz dated 15 July 1674 & 26 Octob 1674 concerning the series w^ch in the first of those two Letters he calls a Theoreme in the second a Method for finding a|th|e s area of a|the| sector\circle/ or |of a| given Sector of a circle\thereof/, in the second a method for finding the circumference or any arc of a circle whose sine is given \w^ch [w^ch series can be w^ch s no other then that of {illeg} M^r Newton for finding the Arc by this sine]/. And then publish the letter Paragraph of his\M^r Leibnitz's/ two letters of 28 Decem. 1675 & 12 May 1676 & in {illeg}|b|oth w^ch he pretends that the series w^ch he had wrote of before & communicated at Paris {illeg} / was that of|{illeg} was that w^ch he had newly received fr| \w^ch he had received from M^r Oldenburg/ for finding the Arc by the Tangent & \in the latter/ desires M^r Oldenburg to procure from M^r Collins the Demonstration of the series for finding the Arc by the since, [& in reconpence for this method promises his trifling Theorem for transmuting of figures into one another |by means of w^ch he had found a Demonstration of the Theoreme sent him by M^r Oldenburg.]|. You need only publish a translation of the Letters without any remarks upon them.