30.07.2015 Views

The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal ... - IndianCoins.org

The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal ... - IndianCoins.org

The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal ... - IndianCoins.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

108 HENRY SYMONDS.even to leaven <strong>the</strong> mass <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> debased moneys. <strong>The</strong>attempt was ab<strong>and</strong>oned after one month's working at<strong>the</strong> Tower, <strong>and</strong> no Irish coins, fine or base, were struckduring a period <strong>of</strong> forty years.THE THIRD COINAGE, 1600-1.Before I discuss <strong>the</strong> coinage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 43rd yearitwillbe necessary to free <strong>the</strong> subject from an entanglementdue to <strong>the</strong> belief that <strong>the</strong>re was an intermediateissue in 1598, during <strong>the</strong> Queen's 40th regnal year.This alleged coinageis mentioned by Stephen Martin-Leake in 1745, Simon in 1749, Eliding in second <strong>and</strong>third editions, <strong>and</strong> by Mr.Grueber in <strong>the</strong> British MuseumH<strong>and</strong>book. It is said that Elizabeth sealed an indenturewith Sir Richard Martin <strong>and</strong> Richard his son in 1598,I hadfor making five denominations <strong>of</strong> Irish money.felt sceptical as to <strong>the</strong>se statements, first because <strong>the</strong>rewas no record <strong>of</strong> such an order or any reference to it in<strong>the</strong> mint accounts; secondly, because Richard Martin <strong>the</strong>younger was not appointed to be a joint master-workerat <strong>the</strong> Tower until September, 1599, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>reforecould not have been a party toa mint indenture in1598; <strong>and</strong>, finally, because <strong>the</strong> Irish coins said to havebeen struck in 1598 bear privy-marks identical insome cases with those on <strong>the</strong> copper pieces dated 1601.I think that <strong>the</strong> cumulative effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se considerationswould have justified a disbelief in <strong>the</strong> existence<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> supposed coinage, without any additional evidence.Quite recently, however, I have confirmed my doubtsby proving beyond question that <strong>the</strong> statements in <strong>the</strong>text-books were founded upon a misreading <strong>of</strong> a recitalin a contemporary document to which I am about torefer. It appears that Martin-Leake, <strong>the</strong> earliest <strong>of</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!