English Farthings

Farthings were struck under governemnt license between 1613 and 1644 by a succession of issuers, John Harrington, the Duke of Lennox, the Duchess of Richmond and Lord Maltravers. We have a lot of these, some are listed as Standard circulation coins, some as Emergency coinage › Official necessity coins and others as Emergency coinage › Merchant tokens. Given that there was no emergency (the Royal Mint simply didn't want to issue base-metal coins, so private contracts were taken out), the last two descriptions are inappropriate. “Official necessity coins” without the “Emergency” part might fit but, since that's unavailable, can I suggest all are changed to Standard circulation coins?

They were privately issued but circulated alongside regular coinage, I see these as being merchant tokens

KennyG

They were privately issued but circulated alongside regular coinage, I see these as being merchant tokens

Strictly speaking, the 17th century merchant tokens came slightly later, 1648-72. The farthings referred to by the OP were effectively regal coinage, being struck by 3rd party issuers under government license. IMHO, they should be listed as standard circulation issues.

If they were effectively legal coinage rather than tolerated, I don't see why they cannot be listed as standard coinage

I would argue that they can only be regarded as tokens in the same sense as all modern coins are tokens, that is, they don't contain their face value in metal. They certainly weren't issued (or produced) by “merchants”, so that label just doesn't fit. If these coins were being issued today, we'd have no difficulty. It's just because they stand out from other English coins of the period that there's a temptation to give them a different label.

Definitely authorised under the Kings' authority.

They deserve to be listed as ‘emergency coinage’.

Aidan.

Why would contract manufacture authorized by the crown not be standard circulation??

I have argued this for a long time. The only reason they are not seen as ‘standard circulation coins’ is that they were not issued by the Royal Mint and so were not legal tender (in the very narrow sense that they could not be guaranteed to be used to settle a debt in court). This was because the Mint didn't want to stoop so low as to issue coins in base metal and anything not issued by them had to be a ‘token’. But by 1672 they were issuing in bronze and by 1797 it was fine for them to issue copper struck at the private Soho mint in Birmingham. Those get called 'standard circulation coins’.

The term ‘standard circulation coins’ doesn't say anything about being ‘legal tender’ - how can it when the formal concept of legal tender only dates to the 1600s - so their legal tender status shouldn't matter. The farthings were meant for standard circulation so that is what they should be.

I have submitted most of the farthings in the catalogue and always try ‘standard circulation coins’ but it gets changed. At some point - I think when the tokens were added to the main catalogue - they all got changed to 'Emergency coinage › Merchant tokens' but the referee met me half way with 'Emergency coinage › Official necessity coins'. The idea that they are ‘emergency’ and ‘necessity’ is purely because they were issued to provide small change, which was very much lacking at the time precisely because of the Royal Mint's refusal to strike in base metal. So the ‘emergency’ was the public need. Of course, that would mean all coins are ‘emergency’, but there you have it.

While we are on the subject of these farthings, there is duplication in the Ireland section because of historical and persistent confusion in catalogues (including Spink) over what these coins were for. The harp on the back makes people think they are all Irish. Some are indeed for use in Ireland (or it is thought they are - this is not 100% proven), but others are not only English but were banned from being used in Ireland. Everson provides by far the most detailed and up-to-date study and categorises the round farthings with legends starting at the top as English, while the oval farthings with legends starting at the bottom are Irish (although struck in England).

So for James I, this is Irish and correctly catalogued, but this is English and labelled as Irish when it was banned from use in Ireland. It is a duplicate of this. It should not be in the Ireland catalogue.

For Charles I, there are several Irish farthings, but the catalogue also has English coins duplicated in the Irish section i.e. this Richmond ‘Irish’ farthing is a duplicate of this Richmond Type 2 English farthing (and combines all six ‘Richmonds’ together) while this Maltravers ‘Irish’ farthing is a duplicate of this Maltravers English farthing.

Thanks, John.

Will leave it to current England/UK referee to make the classification on the farthings consistent given the discussion here, and I will see how to remove the Irish duplicates on the types you mention.  

tdziemia

Thanks, John.

 

Will leave it to current England/UK referee to make the classification on the farthings consistent given the discussion here, and I will see how to remove the Irish duplicates on the types you mention.  

@peterjhalford 

For now I'm happy to leave them as official necessity. 

I will do some more research accordingly. 

peterjhalford

For now I'm happy to leave them as official necessity. 

 

I will do some more research accordingly. 

Will you change all those that aren't set to this or would you like us to request the changes?

ceh2019

peterjhalford

For now I'm happy to leave them as official necessity. 

 

I will do some more research accordingly. 

Will you change all those that aren't set to this or would you like us to request the changes?

Im happy for you guys to make the submissions. I'll be busy this week with the annual sets that were released….😏

All requested. While we're looking at these coins, do we have a reference for the statement that they were not legal tender?

ceh2019

All requested. While we're looking at these coins, do we have a reference for the statement that they were not legal tender?

The Royal Farthing Tokens of James I, C Wilson Peck
"Several proposals for coining copper tokens… The plan was finally…set out in a proclamation dated 19 May 1613… It went on to explain that the king, recognizing the need for such small moneys, had given power and authority, by letters patent, to John, Lord Harington of Exton, to issue sufficient copper farthing tokens…and that they were to pass for the value of farthings . . . with the liking and consent of his loving subjects". In other words, they were not coin of the realm and could not be forced as legal tender: they were, in fact, intended solely for the convenience of any who chose to use them."

Peck was the first person to catalogue the farthings before Everson's reference superseded his. Whether he was right or not about their legal tender status is debatable given the proclamation is not exactly explicit. It is the case of all coins that they are "intended solely for the convenience of any who chose to use them." No-one is forced to accept any coin with the exception of a court when someone is trying to pay a debt (i.e. the definition of legal tender). It's interesting that Everson does not repeat Peck's assertion even in his passage that is clearly referencing Peck as above. 

However, another reason to say they were not legal tender is that the Royal Mint did not issue coins worth less than their weight in metal until they were allowed to do so under George III's Great Recoinage of 1816. You could not repay a debt in court with coins that were not worth their weight in metal until then, although at that point all official tokens became legal tender e.g. the Bank of England tokens. The farthings were not worth their weight in copper (as can be seen in the difference in size between them and George III cartwheels) and so would not be legal tender under that definition.

But the farthings are clearly standard circulation coins. They were tokens but officially sanctioned. They may not have been legal tender but so what? Nothing issued under the Celts, Romans, Saxons, Normans or Plantagenets was ‘legal tender'. Indeed, it isn't clear that the farthings were not legal tender or that such a concept existed at the time. Neither were they emergency issues. They were produced for over 30 years by three regimes and are found in abundance all over the country, so were clearly popular at some point and widely accepted. Any ‘emergency’ is in our minds, not theirs.

Many thanks for that reply. Some more digging turned up this article

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%2520BNJ/pdfs/1982_BNJ_52_16.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi226SK-fSRAxUlQ0EAHQzpATMQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0HkODP0_iYDycOwG9eblBk

which states:

The proclamation did not specify whether they were to be legal tender, but the Star Chamber later declared that they were not.

The reference for the Star Chamber is

Order of 20 June 1634 (copy in PRO, Mint 1/1, p. 115); cited in CSPD 163U-35, p.85.

We can therefore state that these coins were retrospectively declared not to be legal tender in 1634.

I continue to agree that they were not emergency issues. I'd rather they were simply listed as standard coins but the most important thing is that they no longer be listed as merchant tokens. The fact is that the current “type” field is failing and needs replacing by several fields so we can apply the correct designations across the several distinct aspects currently amalgamated into “type”.

I've managed to find the original text of the Star Chamber order. It can be found through this page, then preview or download the file B13079.html. The pertinent section reads as follows:

And they declare further, That they thinke it fit that no person should pay aboue two pence in Farthings to any other person at any time.

The term “legal tender” isn't used and, given the OED has no uses of this term before ca. 1730, this statement seems to be the contemporary equivalent. We can therefore state that these farthing were used for unlimited payments until 1634, when payments in them were limited to two pence. I recommend we remove all mention of “legal tender”.

ceh2019

I've managed to find the original text of the Star Chamber order. It can be found through this page, then preview or download the file B13079.html. The pertinent section reads as follows:

 

And they declare further, That they thinke it fit that no person should pay aboue two pence in Farthings to any other person at any time.

 

The term “legal tender” isn't used and, given the OED has no uses of this term before ca. 1730, this statement seems to be the contemporary equivalent. We can therefore state that these farthing were used for unlimited payments until 1634, when payments in them were limited to two pence. I recommend we remove all mention of “legal tender”.

Thanks, that's very interesting, although it's worth noting that even today coins that are ‘legal tender’ have limits e.g. the 1 penny coin is legal tender but only for debts up to 20p. So if only being able to spend 2p of farthings stops them being legal tender, given the relative value of 2p then and 20p today a penny today isn't legal tender either.

However, I agree the concept of 'legal tender' does not yet seem to have been in use at that time. Most of the pages don't mention legal tender but a few do.

The question of why they can't be 'standard circulating coins' (as OP wishes) hasn't been answered. Therefore, we do not know on what basis it can be changed or not.

- If it's because of their legal tender status, that seems now to be irrelevant and they should be 'standard circulating coins'.

- If it's because they are considered emergency issues that too is incorrect, given they were issued for 30 years, only ending, ironically, in the ‘emergency’ that was the Civil War. They were part of a long process of moving low denominations from silver to copper as the value of silver increased. If these are ‘emergency issues’ on the basis of the need to provide small change when it was in short supply, then we must make Elizabeth I's threefarthing and threehalfpence issues ‘emergency’,  along with Richard II halfpennies, James II tin halfpennies and most early Georgian copper, along with a great many others.

- If it's because they were made privately that too is incorrect, given the Cartwheels made under George III at Soho are standard circulation, as are many coins made at Kings Norton, Pobjoy and Hatton's. The latter is interesting given the discussion - they produce a load of commemorative coins that are legal tender but not for circulation. So you can settle a court debt with them but not spend them in a shop.

But maybe it is none of these. An answer to that would be helpful @peterjhalford