Why does not some man of public research enlighten the public on the
proceedings at the Mint? The whole system is as little comprehensible
by the uninitiated as the philosopher's stone. The cost of the Mint is
prodigious--the machinery is all that machinery can be; yet we have one
of the ugliest coinages of any nation of Europe. A new issue of coin is
about to be commenced.
"It appears, from the king's proclamation, that the new coinage
will consist of double sovereigns, to be each of the value of 40s.;
sovereigns, each of 20s.; and half-sovereigns, 10s. silver crowns,
half-crowns, shillings, and sixpences. The double-sovereigns have for
the obverse the king's effigy, with the inscription, 'Gulielmus IIII.
D.G. Britanniarum Rex. F.D.;' and for the reverse, the ensigns armorial
of the United Kingdom contained in a shield, encircled by the collar of
the Order of the Garter, and upon the edge of the piece the words 'Decus
et Tutamen.' The crowns and half-crowns will be similar. The shilling
has on the reverse the words 'One Shilling,' placed in the centre of
the piece, within a wreath, having an olive-branch on one side, and an
oak-branch on the other; and the sixpences have the same, except the
word 'Sixpence' instead of the words 'One Shilling.' The coppers will
be nearly as at present."
Now we must observe, what the master of the Mint and the people about
him ought to have observed before, that there is in the first instance
a considerable expense incurred in the coinage of the double-sovereigns,
without any possible object, except the expense itself may be an object,
which is not impossible. We shall have in this coin one of the most
clumsy and useless matters of circulation that could be devised. The
present sovereign answers every purpose that this clumsy coin can be
required for, and even the single sovereign would be a much more
convenient coin for circulation if it were divided, as every one knows
who knows the trouble of getting change. The half-sovereign is in fact
a much more convenient coin. But on this clumsy coin we must have a
_Latin_ inscription, as if it were intended only for the society of
antiquaries, or to be laid up in cabinets, which we acknowledge would be
most likely its fate, except for the notorious bad taste of the British
coinage. Of much use it is to an English public to have the classical
phraseology of Gulielmus Britanniarum Rex, put in place of the national
language. Then too we must have the collar of the Order of the Garter
to encircle the national arms, of which this Order is nonsensically
pronounced "Decus et Tutamen." The Glory and Protection. The Order of
the Garter the _glory and protection_ of England! We are content to
let this absurdity stay in Latin or Sanscrit; English would be shamed by
it. The Order of the Garter which goes round the knee of any man, who
comes with the minister's fiat on the subject, and which has no more
relation to British glory or British defence than the Order of the Blue
Button or the Yellow frog of his majesty the Emperor of China; and this
is to go forth on our national gold coin! and for fear that the folly
would not be sufficiently spread, it is to be stamped on our crowns and
half-crowns! The shillings and sixpences luckily escape: plain English
will do for them. And all this goes on from year to year, while we have
in the example of France a model of what a mint ought to be. Every
foreigner makes purchases at the French mint; and the series of national
medals executed there is a public honour and a public profit too. But
whoever thinks of purchasing English mintage except for bullion?--With a
history full of the most stirring events, we have not a single medallic
series--we have scarcely a single medal. But we have in lieu of those
vanities a master of the mint, who is tost new into the office on every
change of party, who has probably in the whole course of his life never
known the difference between gold and silver but by their value in
sovereigns and shillings; but who, in the worst of times, shows his
patriotism by receiving a salary of no less than five thousand pounds
a year?
_Monthly Magazine._
* * * * *