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

Observations upon Mr P. Reply.

pag . 1. The assertions of Mr P. in (pag 12) that there was coyned in silver communibus annis 4000000£ per annum from 1640 to 1660, 200000£ per annum from 1660 to 1680 or thereabouts & less then 80000£ per annum from 1680 to 1695 I allow with this correction that the 400000£ was 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 the growth of paper credit. The great coynage in the first period arose from the peace between England & Spain while Spain was at warr with Holland & France in the reign of Charles 1 , & the small coynage in the last period arose from the late warr with France. And this appears by comparing the increase & decrease of the coynage with the vicissitudes of peace & warr. The silver coynage in the latter half of the reign of Q. Eliz. (after she had recoyned the base money of her predecessors) in the first five years of King James was comminibus annis about 70 or 80thousand pounds per annum. Then upon a cessation of arms between the Dutch & Spaniards it fell suddenly to less then 40000£ per annum. Afterwards upon renewing the warr & making a peace between Spain & England A. D. 1629 it grew greater then ever & continued so till the end of that warr 1648. the coynage of the gold & silver together being above 600000£ per annum & that of silver alone about 440000£ per annum. Then it fell again & became but the 8th or 10th part of what it had been before & continued so for the next 18 years being scarce 70000£ per annum, till the enacting of the coynage Duty 1666 by which & the flourishing of trade in the peacefull reigns of CHa. II & Jac. II. & the quick dispatch of business by paper credit notwithstanding our disadvantageous trade with France, it encreased till it became about 780000£ per annum. And then by the late warr with France & the consequent decay of paper credit & trade it decreased again exceedingly. This agreement between the increase & decrease of the coynage & the state of the nation in respect of peace & war abroad shews that the the coynage has principally depended on that state And of paper Credit hath had any affect upon the coynage it has promoted it because both increased together till 1690 & afterwards both decreased together by the late French war.

if with Mr P. we distinguish the coynage into pounds by certain numbers or years without 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 blend the coynage in times of peace & war together & taking a medium between both we ascribe it neither to peace nor warr but fancy some other cause.

For as for Guineas there could not be above a third part of them weighty enough for culling trade & all Importers did not cull.. In my former paper I recconed about $\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{8}}$th part culled out for melting. If I should say a fift part yet the residue remaining in the nation in the year 1690 would be above 5 millions. And so large a stock of Guineas is confirmed by the plentifull appearance they made when they were at 30s 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 present about an 8th part of the whole silver coyn (as I find by examining several parcells) & therefore in the time of the recoynage of the 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 & the better half of this was milled money, that being the weightiest, then in the beginning of the year 1690 there was about two millions & an half of milled silver monies in the nation. Which added to the five millions of gold makes above seven millions & an half of gold & silver monies coyned in the first 23 years of the Coynage Act & remaining in the 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 oer stock as abundantly makes good the argument from the coynage in favour of the coynage Act & Paper credit.

Yet Mr P. (pag. 6) upon observing that the coynage of both Gold & Silver fell very much soon after the beginning of the late warr, represents it as a thing well known that we had coyned but 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 every four years interceding the recoynage of the Harp & Cross money & the late recoynage of the old hammered money.

There were coyned in the Tower in silver milled monies

By this accompt it appears there were coyned in the 22 years of the Coynage Act from Dec 21 1667 (when the coynage Act began to operate) to Dec 21 1689, the summ of 3277256. 3. 2 which abating by estimation about half a million for the wreck (for I have now forgot how much the wreck was valued at) is after the rate of 126000£ per annum one year with another. And this coynage held without any considerable abatement till the beginning of the French warr & then fell at once to two or three thousand pounds per annum

I have heard it represented that in China Gold is esteemed worth about ten times its 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 per cent. But if with Mr P. we say that the profit of exporting silver to the Indies is but 25 per 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 coynage of silver of above 120000£ per annum which is more then double to what it had ever been by the ordinary course of trade before the growth of paper credit & enacting of the coynage Duty. In the last seven years of K. James I the silver coynage amounted to 102981.£ 9s. 8d which is after the rate of about 15000£ per annum In the 19 years from the death of K. Charles I to the end of the first year of the Coynage Act Dec 23 1667 it amounted to 922945£ (besides the 100000£ for Dunkirk) & this is after the rate of almost 50000£ per annum. But in the next 22 years by the joynt operaton of the Coynage Act & paper credit it amounted one year with another to above 120000£ per annum. Which great increase shews that the Mint Accompts which 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 the Indies have swept away the greatest part of oer silver Bullion.

Observations on Mr P.s Reply.

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

Mr P. (pag. 1, 2) to shew the decrease of the coynage since the rise & growth of paper credit justifies his assertions that there was coyned in silver communibus annis 400000£ per annum and from 1640 to 1660 200000£ per annum from 1660 to 1680 & less then 80000£ per annum from 1680 to 1695. These assertions I dispute not, except that I affirmed the 400000£ per annum to be not in silver alone but in gold & silver together. But I represented that from this decrease of the silver coynage nothing could be argued against paper credit, & that for these two reasons

First because Mr P. considers not the whole coynage of both gold & silver together which makes oer wealth, but that of silver alone. For the coynage of silver from 1640 to 1660 was much greater then that of gold & now is much less & this alteration of the proportion arises not from paper credit but from the exportation of great quantities of silver to the Indies while oer gold stays at home, by reason that silver is a better commodity in the Indies then gold.

Secondly because the decrease of the coynage from 1640 to 1695 was not uniform as it should seem by Mr P.s way of arguing but had several periods of increasing & decreasing according to the vicissitudes of peace & war abroad all which ought to be distinguished & considered severally before any thin can be concluded from the course of the coynage For if the increase & decrease of the coynage arose from other causes then paper credit, then we must not ascribe it to paper credit but to those other causes, & so the argument from the course of the coynage against paper credit will vanish. For the course of the coynage answered to the vicissituded of peace & warr abroad after this manner

The silver coynage in the 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 per annum. Then upon a cessation of arms between the Dutch & Spaniards it fell suddenly to less then 40 thousand pounds per annum. Afterwards upon renewing the war & making a peace between England & Spain 1629 it grew greater then ever & continued so till the end of the warr 1648 the silver coynage being about 440000£ per annum & that of both gold & silver together above 600000£ per annum Then it fell again & became but the 8th or 10th part of what it was before & continued so for the next 18 years being scarce 70000£ per <636v> annum till the enacting of the Coynage Duty 1666 by which and the florishing of trade in the peacefull reigns of CharlesII & James II & the quick dispatch of business by paper credit, notwithstanding oer disadvantageous trade with France it encreased till it became about 680000£ per annum. 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 that state. And if paper credit hath had any effect upon the coynage it has promoted it because both 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 the last 17 years of the reign of K. James the 1st scarce exceeded 40 or 50 thousand pounds per annum. In the reign of K. Charles the 1st it increased to an exceeding height not by the ordinary course of trade but by oer being in peace while oer neighbours were in war & supplied themselves with provisions from England for coyning on that war. After 1647. When that war ceased & trade returned to its ordinary course the coynage (without recconing the recoyning of the Harp & cross money) became but about 68000£ per annum one year with another till the rise & growth of paper credit & the enacting of the coynage 1667, & then in the space of 23 years more by the great encouragement of that Act & the encrease of trade occasioned by the quick dispatch of business by paper credit, the coynage grew ten times greater then it was before. And therefore Mr P. in his first paper seems to have set argument in a wrong light when he represented that the coynage had decreased ever since the rise & growth of paper credit. For he there considers the coynage of silver alone & lessens it by taking a medium between that which preceded the French warr & that which was in the warr. Whereas if he had considered the whole coynage of both gold & silver & distinguished between times of peace & war, he would have found the argument from the coynage to lye in favour of paper credit & of the Coynage Act as I represented it in my former paper.

pag 8 But Mr P. replies that if the Coynage Act had tended as ' much to the securing & keeping of oer Coyn in the nation as it did to ' encourage coynage the advantage I ascribe to that Act would ' have been without contradiction, but it is well known that the success has ' been otherwise, much of the coyn having been melted down ' & exported so that the little time of its circulation scarce made ' amends for the charge of coynage & the Act it self incouraging the coynage of gold ' several times over, & the merchant to coyn in the dead months of exportation what he ' intended to export soon after. So that there may be a great coynage ' without any addition to oer stock. To all which I answer that Trade like a river wears it self channels from which afterwards it cannot easily be diverted

That the designe of the Coynage Act was to derive the channel of gold & silver through the English Mint, & that it has had that effect in a notable manner, that this Act was not designed to precent the melting or exporting <637r> of oer monies, & therefore is not to be blamed for not preventing it & that the quantity of milled monies melted or exported hath been nothing neare so great as Mr P. seems to represent. Merchants do not bring to the Mint what they intend to export. When Guineas were at 30s a piece they appeared very plentifully. In my former paper I recconed about an 8th part culled out for melting. If I should a 6t or 4th part yet the residue would be above 5 millions in December 1689 The milled silver money of K. Cha. & K. James is at present about an eighth part of the whole silver coyn (as I find by several trials & therefore in the time of the recoynage of the hammered money amounted to about a million. If in the 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 weightiness then in December 1689 there was almost 3 millions of milled silver monies. Which added to the 5 millions of gold makes 8 millions of gold & silver monies coyned in the first 23 years of the Coynage Act & remaining in specie till the year 1689 nesides what was recoynd. And this makes me still of opinion that the Coynage Act hath been of vast advantage to the nation. I mean in conjunction with Paper Credit. For both together promoted the coynage exceedingly till the beginning of the French war So then if any argument can be drawn from the coynage about the increase of oer money by trade (fr Mr P. appeals to it in his first paper) it makes absolutely in favour of Paper credit.

2. On the Quantity of coyne in the nation.

Out of the 16 mllions of Silver money recconed by Mr P. to have been in the nation about the year 1676 I made several abatements, as 1st of a million or a million & an half of counterfeit money. Mr P. thinks this abatement too much by far & that the counterfeit scarce exceeded 100000£. I reccon it thus. The five millions melted down in the Exchequer proved about 7dwt worse then standard. This worsness arose from false silver money of base allay, & if in the pieces of base allay taken one with another one half was fine silver the base money must have been about y 15th part of the five millions, that is about the third part of a million. There was another sort of narrow counterfeit money made f clippings & briad money wihout allay & this being of standard silver past as currently as if it had been coyned in the Kings mint, & for that reason abounded most in the coyn. I reccon it therefore at above $\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{2}}$ a million. The brass money being most discernable was least in quantity. If it be recconed per cent of the whole, it will amount to 75000£. So that all the counterfeit money in these 5 millions amounted to above 900000£. And if all the counterfeit money in the other 5 millions was but one third part as much the whole will amount to above 1200000£.

2dly I abated for the wearing of the money & 3dly for the clipping thereof & the abatements were proportional to what I had observed in some parcells of broad hammered money which had been long hoarded in the country, & most of it unclipt & the rest were not so much clipt but that above 30 years ago it might be very passible in payments the clipping scarce appearing to the eye without weighing the pieces. The abatements in my computation for the wearing culling washing & filing of the milled money scarce amount to 1 per cent.

4thly Out of The milled money which in 1676 he reccons at three millions I abated above a million. For Guineas began to be coyned at 44 to the pound weight in Apr 1 1663 & from that time to the end of December 1676 there was coyned in silver by the Mint Accounts 1779277.£ 19s. 6d wherof about 220000£ was out of cross & harp money. Out of the three millions I should have abated therefore above 1200000£.

5tly Out of the 3 millions recconed to be melted down out of the broade hammered money after the years 1676 I make another abatement For the hammered shillings had one withanother lost about 5 grains a piece by wearing as I found out by weighing some parcells of unclipt shillings. These were therefore grown too light to be so fit for the cullers trade as the milled money generally was & the sixpences were more worne in proportion to their weight. All the money of Q. Eliz & almost all of that of K. James I & half that of K. Cha. I was in shillings & sixpences. The half crowns were scarce a third part of all the hammered money, & therefore in the year 1676 scarce exceeded 4 millions. Of these 4 millions part were hoarded in the country & came not to the cullers hand since 1676, part were clipt either before 1676 or afterwards & if a third part of the rest withwas culled for clipping & melting it would scarce amount to a million, & that third part being lightned above 2 pr cent by wearing & in some measure culled before 1676 would aford not much above half a million so fit for as the mulled money was. And yet in my former paper I recconed it at a million.

Paper credit being a sort of riches equipollent to money quickens & enlarges trade not only by making dispatch in business but also by enlarging oer stock & lowering the interest of money. Mr 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 the rates of letting land. For the 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.

Mr P. (sect 25) says further that to lower interest by more paper credit is to run doen the value of oer true, by using a false coyne which will prove fatal in the end whatever present ease it may seemingly give I answer that to lower the value of money is to make all things whose price depends not on forreign markets still well, & to set all hands on work grain & by mending the price of their labours, & hurts no body but them that have nothing but money to let or sell. Tis to raise the price of land & grain & stock &c & thereby to enrich the Farmer & Landlord & bring back money from the City into the Country & make a greater quantity of it necessary there for marketing & paying rents & wages & taxes & doing other country business. And all this tends to the securing of oer money from being exported [And this suplys us with an answer to what       is further said against the lowering of interest & enlarging of trade by paper credit (sect 25) vizt that if oer coyn be carried out while we are 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, which 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 oer paper will have a natural tendency to exchange those trades that are carried on by the exportation of oer 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 not a natural way of doing it because it tends to enlarge bad trades which carry out oer money, & when the 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 , making all things sell well setting all hands at work & work & making quick dispatch in all great business

By all this he allows paper credit wherever the security us good . And of this kind reccons Notes & Bills upon a Standing Bank in which a Deposit of money is secured. And I do not see that security upon land is as good or better For a Bank may be seized & carried away <638v> but kand is immoveable. He allows also credit upon a Parliamentary Tax as a cordial in cases of necessity, provided it exceed not the tax & be discharged when the money comes in. For he says the danger of using paper as money arises not from the use of the paper but from the misapplication of the Deposit. So then Opinion is not against Paper Credit upon the account of its being paper credit , tis not against all circulating paper credit in general but against those sorts of paper credit which are not grounded upon good security & so the debate ends in a question about the security of this or that sort of credit whether it be good or not.

And I do not see but credit upon Parliamentary funds ( such as are exchequer Bills, Bank of England Bills, Mault Tickets Million Lottery tickets Annuity Tickets &c( is as good as if the money were in Bank. For the security is good while the Government & publick faith lasts & there is but money enough circulating in the nation to pay Taxes & when those things fail so sweet a morsel as a Bank of money would be in danger of being seized for publick uses then the Bank of England of being dissolved.. Certainly the credit of the Bank of England is safer then that of private Bankers who sometimes break & therefore it was well set up.

The credit of particular Merchants is more apt to fail & yet it must be tenderly dealt with because the life of their trade.

If all oer paper credit considered as a sort of riches were turned into fold, the gold would incline to luxury as the credit did before & the luxury would export oer silver, must we therefore throw away the gold for fear we should want market money? Why should we not rather endeavout to grow eichter by keeping oer gold & supporessing luxury?

tho paper credit be a sort of riches ww must not use it inmmoderately Like vertue it jas its extremes. Too much may hurt us as well as too little. So much is best for us as suffices to lower interest; make dispatch in business set the people on work & inspire life & vigour into all the busy part of the nation & more then this may be of ill consequence by inclining the nation too strongly to luxury. What proportion in respect of gold & silver is best for us is a consideration which may vary with circumstances of time & must be left to experience & the wisdom of the legislative power.

But the danger is the loss of oer money by exportation - Paper credit inclines to luxury & luxury exports oer money, This is true of credit on Land Banks be the security never so good & on all sorts of funds what beside money Banks, Must we therefore reject all credit whatever where the security is not a Bank of money? If this be a good argument

But Mr P. objects against all the circulating credit in England that For This objection 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 & the security never so good. [Must we therefore reject all oer credit as pernicious. No sure, for if] But if

& trade.✝ < insertion from > ✝ For Markets, workmens wages & all petty expenses silver is the most usefull & will always have a circulation. In larger payments gold makes more dispatch & paper security still more. Tis fittest for dispatch in Trade & all great business & on that account more valuable then Bonds & Morgages. Or to speak more truly tis the life of Trade & without it Trade becomes dead, as at present.

Tis luxury in forreign commodities which occasions Θ exportation of oer money Let luxury be checkt & paper credit will enrich us & keeo oer money at home:

But Mr 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 incourages the exportation of it to make profit of it abroad & discourages the bringing it in to be coyned & kept here, & that it makes paper the measure of trade & thereby gives advantage to Foreigners to trade with oer paper & carry off what they get in coyn. To which I answer that the same arguments lye against the circulation of silver. For by circulating it make gold useless (a much more precious metal then it self) & sets it at liberty to be exported &c & yet men chuse rather to hoard their gold then to export eport it. Jewels want circulation & yet are not exported. Tis not the want of the circulation of oer silver monies but the desire of forreign commodities which causes us to export oer silver to forreign markets & this mischief is not to be remedies 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 with money the latter Mr P. opposes, & compares to counterfeit money For tho he writes against paper credit in general yet by the reasons which he brings against it he every where explains himself that by paper credit he understands not good paper security or security founded on a secure deposit of sufficient value but such paper credit where there wants a deposit or where the deposit is in danger of being withdrawn. For all his reasons center in this that the paper credit now in use amongst us reers the deposit unsafe & brings it into danger of being withdrawn, & this is as much as to say that the credit is not good.

And So where he compares paper credit to counterfeit money he speakes of credit where the deposit 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

To

Isaac Newton Esquire Master & Worker of his Majesties Mint in the Tower of                London

Mr P. represents that my Deduction of 733300£ for the money coynd after the death of King Charles because it was afterwards recoynd ought not to be allowed. He seems to mistale my meaning which I thus explain. ✝ < insertion from >      ✝ He reccons b the coynage by the ordinary course of trade from 1640 to 1660 to be after the rate of 400000£ per annum without observing that in the first 8 or 9 years of that period the coynage was very great by means of the Spanish war in the Netherlands, & after that war ceased & the coynage depended only on the ordinary course of trade it became but the 10th part of what it was before. These two periods of the coynage he distinguishes not but reduces the whole to a medium of 400000£ per annum as if so much were coyned yearly by ordinary course of trade duing the whole 20 years, Spanish ceased there wa & upō this Hypothesis he argues against paper credit whereas after the Spanish war ceased & nothing more was coyned then what in by the overballance of trade the coynage was but about 65000£ yearly which is but the sixt part of what Mr P. reccons it. To set the argument right therefore distinguish between the times of the Spanish war & those after it & because the records of the coynage of those times are gone out of the MInt I collect it as nearly as I can after the return of King Charles II was almost a million & this was the money coyned in the11$\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{3}}$ years between the death of King Charles I & the return of King Charles II. & one yeare with another amounts to almost 88000£ per annum. At which rate there was coyned in the first 8$\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{3}}$ years of that period that is till May 1657 almost 733300£ The gold & silver coyned between the death of King Charles I & the return of King Charles II was almost a million. that is almost 88000£ per annum which makes in the first 8$\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{3}}$ years of that period that is till May 1657 almost 73300£. The gold & Silver coyned from the last of March 1638 to May 1657 according to one of the accounts mentioned by Mr P. was 7733521£. 13s. 4d$\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{2}}$. If you subduct the 733300£ coyned in the last 8$\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{3}}$ years thereof there will remain about 7 millions coyned in the first 10$\frac{\mathrm{5}}{\mathrm{6}}$ years from the last of March 1638 to the death of King Charles I. And this coynage was after the rate of 646000£ per annum. THis great coynage as I said was occasioned by the Spanish wars in the Low Countries, & so makes nothing to Mr Poluxfins argument against paper credit. He should in that argument consider only the coynage occasioned by the ordinary course of trade. This coynage in the 18 years from the death of King Charles I to the maing of the coynage Act (omitting the recoinage of the Harp & Cross money) was only after the rate of 68000£ per annum but afterwards by the Coynage Act & Paper credit increased gradually so as in the compass of 22 years more to become ten times greater then before. Thus the argument from the Account of the Mint which Mr P. brings against Paper Credit: if it be rightly stated makes exceedingly for it.

p. 6

Upon my observing that the coynage both of gold & silver fell very much soon after the beginning of that later warr, Mr P. represents it is a thing well known that we had coyned but little silver, excepting what came from the wreck, for some years before. To which I reply that after the growth of paper credit & the enacting of the coynage Duty we coyned more silver then ever we did before by the ballance of trade alone & this great coynage of silver continued till the very beginning of the French war & then ceased on a sudden by the war. For proof of this I have subjoyned an account of the silver coynage every 4 years from the 31th of Mar 1664 to the 21st of Dec 1695.

In the last seven years of K James the 1 the silver coynage amounted to 102981£. 9s. 8d which is after the rate of 14711.£ 12s. 10d per annum In the 19 years from the Death of King Charles 1 to the end of the first year of the coynage Act it amounted to 922945£ (besides the 100000£ for Dunkirk) & this is after the rate of 48576£ per annum. But in the next twenty years by the joyn operation of the Coynage Act & paper credit it amounted one year after another to above double that summ yearly & continued so till the very beginning of the late war with France & then ceased at once there being coyned 96373£ in the year 1689 & but 1994£ in the next year

I have heard it credibly represented that in China Gold is esteemed worth about ten times its weight of Silver, & that in a parcel of Gold of about 10 or 12lwt brought from China last Summer the profit was 60 per cent But if with Mr P. we say that the profit of exporting silver to the Indies is but 25 per 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 exportations make a coynage of silver more then double to what it had ever been by the ordinary course of trade before the growth of paper credit & enacting of the coynage duty. So then the argument from the Mint Accounts which Mr P. principally appeals to against Paper Credit makes highly for that Credit as well in the Coynage of silver a sin that of Gold. Very great complaints have been made against the East India trade for impoverishing the nation by exporting oer silver & yet Paper credit & the Coynage Act operated so strongly for enriching the nation as to bring in more silver then the East India Trade carried out by an excess above double to what was ever brought in before by trade alone.

debilis est et parum minus lucidus color p 82 l27 optimo tubulato{illeg} 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.

                     Foiver London Feb. 15th 1700.

Worthy Sr.

I Desire your fovour of knowing your pleasure Concerning the 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 per bearer will Infinitely Oblige                               Your Humble Servant                                    Tho: Kemp