A Paper given before the Lancashire
Numismatic Society, March 22nd, 1947
B. A. SEABY LTD. Numismatists .. 65 GREAT PORTLAND STREET, LONDON, W.1
Until about 12 years ago it was generally believed by numismatists that the first coin struck expressly for use in the Isle of Man was a gold coin issued in 1324 by the Scottish Duke of Albany, bearing the arms of the island.1 This was followed in 1329 by a copper coin struck by the then Governor of the Isle of Man, Martholine who had previously been almoner to Robert the Bruce.2 This coin is described as having the King's head (i.e., the Scottish King) on the obverse, and a cross on the reverse. Several historians of the Island mention these two coins as being the earliest known Manx pieces.
In 1934, however, Mr. H. Alexander Parsons, a well known numismatist, demonstrated that as early as the last decade of the tenth century, a silver coin of the CRUX type was struck specially for the Isle of Man by GODRED MAC-HAROLD, that is, GODRED son of HAROLD, then King or Jarl of Man.3 (Jarl, which equals our word Earl, also denoted King, or Ruler.) The exact place of the minting of this coin has not been determined, but Mr. Parsons puts it almost beyond doubt to have been in the island. He explains also that the reason this coin had so long remained unidentified-it had, at one time, been erroneously attributed to the Hebrides-was that in making the die, a Runic character had inadvertantly been used in the legend amongst the Latin letters. Mr. Parsons states that two specimens of the coin are known to exist; (see illustration on page 7 of his work).
A letter from Bishop Merrick written in 1580 4 regarding the Manx people, states that at that period " their language is peculiar to themselves, and likewise their money," and it has been suggested that the money referred to was a currency of leather. The historian Waldron who made a tour of the island during the first quarter of the eighteenth century, writing of this leather money, said that the tokens had no other impression than the maker's name and the date, and that every man of substance was entitled to make them.
In 1646 because " certain men from England " had coined and uttered false money called Ducketoons,5 Tynwald enacted that to " falsify, forge and counterfeit, clipp and diminish any kind of current coin," was to be adjudged High Treason, punishable by death, and forfeiture of " all lands, tenements, goods, chattells, etc." to the Lord of the Isle. By this Act, the forgery of copper or brass coins was made a felony, while in England such laws applied only to the forgery of silver or gold money.
During the second half of the seventeenth century there was a large circulation of Irish issues in the Isle of Man, consisting chiefly of the copper pieces known as St. Patrick's half- pence and farthings, and of small brass halfpenny tokens commonly called " Butcher's Brass " on account of the pieces bearing a representation of the Butchers' Arms. These tokens were issued in Dublin and in Limerick. In a pamphlet in Trinity College, Dublin 6 it is stated in regard to these " Butchers' Halfpence," that one man who issued them, counterfeited his own tokens in the ratio of 10 forgeries to one genuine one; which forgeries he refused to redeem, on the ground that they were false, and, the pamphlet states, this resulted in a loss of little less than £1,000 to the City of Dublin.
So much of the base Butchers' brass had got into circulation in the Isle of Man by 1697, that Tynwald enacted that " no copper or brass money called Butchers' halfpence, Patrick halfpence and copper farthings, or any other of that nature, shall pass in the Island after the 1st day of Jan. next " but added that this should not hinder the passage of. . . the brass money called Jno. Murrey's pence, which was still to pass according to order. Thus "Johnnie Murrey's penny," as it is known in the island, which began as a token, was raised to the status of a legal coin by this Tynwald Act. It is a very scarce piece, and when found, is usually in poor condition. Its scarcity, I think, is due to the fact that when, in 1733 all former issues were declared to be no longer current, a later John Murrey, son or grandson of the issuer, redeemed the tokens. This little coin is not attractive in appearance ; those specimens which I have seen being poorly struck.
It was issued in two varieties in brass 7 and I have seen the statement that it occurs in copper but have not seen such a one. One variety has on the obverse IOHN MURREY 1668, within a circle, round the rim, and HIS PENNY I+M within a dotted circle; on the Il the Three Legs within a dotted circle, surrounded by QUOCUNQUE GESSERIS STABIT, within an outer circle. The second variety is said to be similar on the obverse, but on the R (instead of the Three Legs) has OF DOUGLAS IN MAN.
In 1708, James, the 10th Earl of Derby, contemplated making an issue of money for the Isle of Man, and approached the Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain with a request that he might have made at the Mint £300 or £400 worth of copper money for the Island. This request being referred to Sir Isaac Newton, at that period the Master of the Mint, he (Newton) made two recommendations to the Treasury-
(a) that his Lordship might have the said sum of Her Majesty's copper money with the Arms of the Island instead of a Britannia, and that the Master was willing to coin " a Tunn or two," cutting a pound weight into one and twenty pence, etc.8
(b) that if the Earl required copper money to be current only in the Isle of Man 9 then the Master was of the opinion that no coin other than her Majesty's should be coined in Her Majesty's Mint, but that an Island coinage might be undertaken as private business by the Moneyers 10, but it is evident that neither of these proposals came to anything.
The suggested coinage which the Earl required, when made, was dated 1709, and con-sisted of copper pence and halfpence, and a peculiarity of the issue is that the coins were CAST and not struck. It was long believed that these coins were made in England and sent to the Isle of Man (the Act of Tynwald, 24th Day of June, 1710 which Proclaimed these copper Pence and Halfpence to be currant (sic) and passable at all Times after this Day, states that the money was " sent over " by the Lord of the Isle) ; but when, about 1905, the old Mint within the walls of Castle Rushen, Castletown, Isle of Man, was excavated, the authorities found such remains from coining operations as to satisfy them that this coinage of the Earl's dated 1709 was cast at that Mint. The Director of the Manx Museum has most kindly had made for me plaster casts of the old " runs " of copper used in the making of the coinage, and a number of spoiled castings, of both penny and halfpenny size. I am pleased to be able to display these casts to you this afternoon.
These 1709 cast copper coins are rather crude productions, but one must take into account the circumstances in which they are believed to have been made. Many of the pieces shew that the molten metal did not completely fill the moulds, with the result that the tail of the figure 9 in the date did not appear on the coin at all, so that the 9 was easily mistaken for a nought. This at one time led to a belief that there had been a coinage issued bearing the date 1700. The penny has the Stanley crest, commonly known as the Eagle and Child, on the obverse, surrounded by the Stanley motto, SANS CHANGER and the date. The two words, and the date, are divided by " roses." On the reverse are the well known Three Legs, armoured and spurred, surrounded by the legend QUOCUNQUE GESSERIS STABIT (note the spelling GESSERIS). The armouring of the legs was in such low relief that it has entirely dis- appeared from almost all existing specimens. I have, however, seen a very fine piece in the cabinet of Dr. Philip Nelson whereon the armouring is quite well shewn. After the words QUOCUNQUE and GESSERIS, come large pellets, and after the final word, STABIT, a rose. These roses also wore down very quickly and only indications of a slight scalloping on the edge of what otherwise appear to be large pellets are to be seen on most of the coins. On the silver patterns, which I have seen but do not possess, the roses are beautifully clear. Silver castings are capable of shewing more fine detail than castings of copper.
The halfpenny exactly resembles the penny except for size, and that there are no roses at all.
In 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725 and 1732, patterns, very much resembling each other, but with certain differences, were struck, but none was issued for currency. The one dated 7 Nelson, p. 13.
1725 was a very large piece, only fractionally smaller than the Victorian penny issued for the Island in 1839 ; and the pattern dated 1732, known as the " split date " pattern, bore the 17 and the 32 divided by the cradle.
The next Stanley coins are dated 1733, and Dr. Nelson tells us they were struck in William Wood's Bath metal, and these are really lovely coins. (I think I had better say here that though this coinage is usually referred to as Wood's work, it would be correct to say that it was made by his successors, as Wood died in 1730). These Bath metal pieces have the Stanley crest on the obverse, with the usual motto and the date beneath. On the reverse are the Three Legs, armoured and spurred; between the thighs occur the letters I.D. (James Derby) and in the third space the numeral I for the value. Both sides have a toothed border and the edge is plain. The halfpenny exactly resembles the penny except for size and carries I instead of I between the bends. There are not a large number of differences in the dies, but one of the pennies I am shewing seems to me to constitute a variety, as the pellets on the armouring of the legs, are replaced by armlets. Also another I am shewing, (also a penny) has a " frosting " on the inside of the Cap of Maintenance. One of the peculiarities of this issue is that the coins are quite noticably thicker in the centre than at the edge. This is immediately to be felt by taking the coin flat between the finger and thumb. (I have put one or two poorer specimens on the trays for this purpose).
There are said to be many copper forgeries of these Bath metal pieces dated 1733. There are some further remarks I would like to make regarding this issue but will come back to this matter later after dealing with the remaining coinages.
James Stanley, 10th Earl of Derby, died in 1736, and as his only child had predeceased him, the Isle of Man passed to James Murray, second Duke of Athol, a grandson of Amelia Sophia, the third daughter of James, the Seventh Earl (" The Great Stanley ") who was beheaded in 1651. The new Lord did not issue any Island money until 1758, when he made a copper coinage amounting to £400 in pence and halfpence. The penny and halfpenny are alike except for size. The obverse has a monogram A.D. (Atholl Dux), surmounted by a Ducal coronet, and the date beneath the cipher; the reverse has the Three Legs and usual motto. Many of the halfpennies skew a long flaw on the obverse die, as does the one I am displaying. In the Clucas collection in the Douglas Museum, Isle of Man, there is a series of these half- pennies shewing the progress of the flaw. I have also put on one of the trays this afternoon a halfpenny of a very light colour which I have seen to be stated as of a different copper from the usual coin. I am also shewing a silver pattern of the Atholl penny; these patterns have an engrailed edge. The specimen I am displaying is kindly lent by one of our members.
It is stated by more than one numismatic writer that the fabric of this issue was of a very soft copper, and consequently the coins did not wear well. This may be the reason why specimens in Mint state are not easily procured, but the device is in very low relief and, failing any protective edge, would in any case soon " wear down." I have seen an Atholl penny worn so smooth as to have the appearance of a blank copper disc until held slantingly towards the light, when a shadowy device could be discerned.
Dr. Nelson, in his " Coinage of the Isle of Man " (usually referred to as " The Manx Collectors' Bible ") mentions that he has heard of but never met with any forgeries of the Atholl penny. On one of the trays I have put on the table this afternoon, there are three specimens of a forgery which I think interesting. It will be noted that there has been an error in cutting the die, in the letter " O " in the word " quocunque." The mistake had been noticed and the erroneous letter filled in with fresh metal and re-engraved before the coins were struck. I am also shewing another penny, also a forgery, on which the device differs from the type in the ornamentation of the monogram, and there is an additional foliation at the termination of the letter " A." I have not seen another like this and if any member possesses a similar piece I would much like to see it.
In 1765 the British Crown purchased the Isle of Man from the Duke of Atholl, and in 1786 Geo. III issued his first coins for the Island. This coinage consisted of copper pence and halfpence, and it is noteworthy that by this issue copper pennies were coined by the Crown for the Isle of Man before we had copper pennies in England. These pence and halfpence are much larger coins than any previous Manx issue. The obverse has the King's head, sur- rounded by his title, and the date below the bust; the reverse has the Three Legs and the usual motto. The halfpenny is like the penny except for size, and the formation of the figure " 7 " in the date. This figure is straight on the halfpenny, but on the penny the terminal is curved backwards. Both coins have a " roped " edge. I am displaying a number of these pennies which shew slight variations ; on one the date is more " spread " ; two are on a larger flan, and three shew considerable differences in the shape and number of the units forming the circle at the rim.
In 1798 there was the first issue of the two " cart-wheel " or " wagon-rim " coinages, again pence and halfpence, and in 1813 the second of these issues. The pence have on the obverse the King's head, with his titles incuse on the broad rim; the date also on the rim.
The reverse with the Three Legs and customary motto. The halfpence are like the pence except for size, and for an error in spelling the King's name on the 1798 piece, whereon a " u " has taken the place of the customary " v " in GEORGIVS. Both coins have a plain edge. These two issues were made by Boulton & Watt, and there are numerous re-strikes at a later time when the dies had got into the hands of other people. These re-strikes are not difficult to detect as the armouring on the Legs shews little, if any, of the finer detail, probably due to the dies having rusted and x consequently had to be cleaned up.
The next issue was in 1839, and this, for the first time included a farthing. This coinage has the " young " head of Victoria surrounded by VICTORIA DEI GRATIA, with the date below, on the obverse, and the Three Legs and the usual motto on the reverse. " W.W." appears on the truncation, incuse on the penny and halfpenny, raised on the farthing. Many of the halfpennies and farthings spew a hair line fracture on the reverse, which, when the coin is turned over is seen clearly to follow the shape of the back of the Queen's head from the falling lock of hair down to the truncation.
Up to the time of this issue the English shilling was worth fourteen Manx pennies, and as it had been decreed that with this coinage there were to be only twelve pence to the shilling, quite serious riots occured. Naturally the poor Manxman wanted to know where his two- pence had gone to, twopence in the shilling being a very considerable loss. The trouble became so grave that the Military had to be called out. This was known later as " The Copper Row." The local dissatisfaction continued and the issue was subsequently withdrawn. This Victorian issue consisted of £332 in pence, £446 in halfpence, and £222 in farthings. At this time all former issues were called in. When this Victorian issue was withdrawn less than £60 was handed in for return to the Treasury.
Between 1841 and 1864 inclusive, a number of mules were struck from the obverse of the current pence, halfpence and farthings, and the reverse of the 1839 Manx issue. These pieces are usually described as patterns, and bring high prices at auctions.
It is of interest to note the disposition of the " Legs " throughout the whole of the Manx issues. If you will imagine the Legs to be a man standing on the Isle of Man, you will see that on the first Stanley coin (1709), the Man is in a kneeling posture, towards Ireland ; on the 1733 coins he has changed his position and is kneeling to England, as he also is on the Atholl issue (1758). But observe, so soon as ever the island was sold to England, the Man is not kneeling to anybody, and he isn't even looking at England-and on Geo. III first issue (1786) he is running, and running at top speed, towards Ireland. He keeps on at this rate through the issues of 1798 and 1813. With the Victorian issue in 1839 his pace has decreased some- what, but he still has his back turned on England, and is away to Ireland at as great a speed as possible.
I said I should like to say something more about the Stanley coins dated 1733. It has always seemed to me that there was something of a minor mystery regarding the coinage of this date, and as I believe I have resolved this little mystery, I would like to put my conclusions before you this afternoon.
It has been generally accepted hitherto that only one genuine issue, that is, a properly authorised issue, was coined for the year 1733, and that this was struck in Wood's Bath metal; furthermore, that this Bath metal coinage was issued in two portions, the first consisting of £300 in pence and £200 in halfpence ; that is to say, the first portion amounted to £500 ; the second portion was of £250 in pence and £150 in halfpence, so that the second portion amounted to £400 ; or a total issue of £900. There has never been any suggestion that the coins of the two portions varied in any way from each other, minor differences in the dies being common to both portions. The descriptions of one penny and of one halfpenny served for both portions of the issue.
In addition to this genuine issue struck in Bath metal, there are quite considerable numbers of copper coins dated 1733. These are of inferior execution and are stated by the acknowledged authorities on Manx coins, to be forgeries. Of these there are known 10 or 11 varieties, and there is also one in brass. Personally, I have always found a difficulty in believing that all of this large number of copper pieces could be forgeries, in spite of them comparing so unfavourably with the Bath metal coins. As I said earlier, in 1646 a law was passed by Tynwald making the forgery of any kind of current coin High Treason, punishable by death and the forfeiture of all the goods whatsoever of the felon so convicted, and with each Proclamation by Tynwald of an issue of money for the Island, this law was re-enacted ; and more than that, in 1710 there was added a clause requiring every person possessing any of the Lord's pence and halfpence, to bring them on the second Thursday of June each year, to the Captain of his Parish to be counted and reckoned. Failure to do this was punishable with a heavy fine. Judging from the number of these 1733 coins I have seen, I should say that the copper forgeries and the Bath metal pieces of the genuine issue, are about equal in number, and this would indicate a considerable amount of counterfeiting. With the above-mentioned laws in force, it would appear to me to be very unlikely that forgery on such a scale could have been carried on without its source being discovered; and that it would be remarkable if most of the false pieces which had got into circulation, had not been detected and withdrawn at the annual examination ; yet the fact remains that this large amount of so-called forgeries survived.
Hoping to find something which would throw further light on the question of these forgeries, I obtained Mills's Ancient Ordinancies and Statute Laws of the Isle of Man which begins with the year 1419, and noted each law relating to currency. I did not find anything helpful regarding forgery, but I did find what was, to me, a piece of quite new information, viz., that on June 25th 1733, Tynwald proclaimed a coinage to be current and passable from that day, consisting of £300 of copper pence and £200 of copper halfpence, that is, £500 worth of pence and halfpence together, which, so Tynwald declared, had been sent over by the Earl of Derby. (It should be noted that this issue amounts to the same sum (£500) as the first portion of the coinage attributed to Wood.)
That this coinage proclaimed by Tynwald was of copper makes it clear at once that it was no part of Wood's Bath metal issue. As I said earlier, the only currency dated 1733 which has been recognised by the numismatic authorities on the money of the Isle of Man as being a genuine, that is a properly authorised, issue is the coinage struck in Bath metal and, as you will remember, issued in two portions, the first amounting to £500 and the second amounting to £400. This Proclamation by Tynwald, then, would appear to give us an additional coinage, hitherto unrecorded, this time of copper.
Now, somewhat further complicating the matter, the Manx people have a well-established belief that the 1733 coinage-and please note they say THE 1733 coinage, that is, the whole of the coins bearing that date-was made within the Island, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Castletown, by a local blacksmith, who was said to have obtained the metal for the coins by melting down some disused brass cannon from Castle Rushen. (Dr. Nelson mentions this report as to cannon in his " Coinage of the Isle of Man.") This story would at first seem to indicate yet another coinage dated 1733 unrecorded by numismatic writers.
For a good many years I thought it might be that there was a connection between the blacksmith's coins and the copper forgeries-brass cannon notwithstanding. I won't tell you how much time I spent in the endeavour to trace such a connection, but I was entirely wrong, the two issues were not in any way related. When, eventually, I got the full story of the black-smith's issue, it proved to be something very different from the bald statement I had heard regarding it.
In the Seneschal's office in Castletown, was found an old book entitled " A Book of Disbursements on the Coynage of the New Pence and Halfpence," with the sub-title inside the book " Disbursements on the Coynage of Brass money." From the particulars given in this book we learn that two men, Mr. Amos Topping and Mr. Samuel Dyall (and probably another man named Garner) came to the Isle of Man from London, by way of Liverpool, in January 1733. They brought with them " their chests and other instruments for coyning " and also " 11 casks of blank pence." The Disbursements include an item for " 22 tun of coales ... for use of the Coyning," and also one for bricks, with which three furnaces were erected. The blacksmith, George Wilks, was paid for 62 weeks' work on the coinage, at 10/- per week British, and Topping and Dyall were also paid for 62 weeks' work, but they got 15/- per week. In addition the blacksmith's son, John Wilks, and several other named men, were employed on different processes. The coinage was completed in March 1734.
This issue will not link up with the £500 sent over by the Earl of Derby, as that was of copper, and presumably was sent over in a finished state, as Tynwald proclaimed it current from the day of the Proclamation. The word "brass " in the title of the Book of Disbursements, particularly as it was used only in the inside titling of the book, would, I think, indicate that the metal of which the coins were made was mentioned as an afterthought, in order that the issue would by this means be definitely distinguished from the copper coinage sent over by the Earl in the previous year. (As I said, this brass coinage was not completed until 1734, though of course all the coins of the issue were dated 1733.) Wood's Bath metal has by some writers been referred to as " brass "-Atkins uses the word-and Bath metal does consist of three-quarters brass.
This, then, suggested to me that the Island-made coinage might be identified with the Bath metal issue made by Wood's successors, and on going further into it there would appear to be no doubt that this is the case. I read what I could find regarding Wood, but it amounted to little more than the fact that he had two mints, one in London and one in Bristol, and, as we know, that he made the coins of the Rosa Americana series. There was, however, a description of the method of striking Bath metal, which was stated as follows,-" They (the blanks) were struck ... by an engine that raised and let fall an heavy weight upon them when made hot, which is the most expeditious way of striking Bath metal." Well, there would be no insuperable difficulties about the transport of an engine to " raise and let fall an heavy weight " ; the blanks were there, the three furnaces for heating them, and the experienced " coyners." However, further to support the view that this was indeed the Bath metal issue, in the book of disbursements there is an item of 1/9d. paid for making " six small melting pots for melting of silver," and the payments for wages show that Amos Topping (one of the men who came from London) spent some time in the early part of his stay, in " casting his Lopp's (sic) [Lordship's] silver medals." (You will recollect that Newton used the word " medall " to distinguish the coins the Earl wanted making for the Island, from Her Majesty's money 11). There certainly are silver proofs of the Bath metal pence and halfpence-there are some displayed here this afternoon-and there is no other coinage dated 1733 of which silver proofs are known. These " silver medals " appear to have been submitted to the Earl for his approval before starting to strike the Bath metal pieces, as Bishop Wilson in a letter to the Governor mentions that his Lordship had made him a present of " one of ye silver medals " and states that his Lordship is wonderfully pleased with them.
I think from the above particulars it is conclusive that this issue of " Brass pence and half- pence" struck in the Island is indeed none other than the coinage of Wood's Bath metal; and as it was not completed until 1734, it must be the second part, said to amount to £400, of the two portions of an issue dated 1733. But what about those brass cannon which were said to have supplied the metal for this coinage ? The story of such cannon being used was certainly handed down through two or three generations of one family, and it would seem reasonable to suggest that, having so much unwanted brass available in the form of disused cannon, the Earl may well have sent them over to one of Wood's mints to be used in the manufacture of the "11 casks of blank pence" which were brought over with the two " coyners " from London. It may be possible at some future time to find whether this was the fact of the matter.
As this £400 of brass, or more correctly Bath metal money was the whole amount made at this coining operation in the 62 weeks of which particulars are given in the book of disbursements, what of the first portion of the issue dated 1733, formerly also attributed to Wood's Bath metal issue, amounting to £500? This must surely refer to the £500 of copper coinage sent over by the Earl and proclaimed by Tynwald as being current from June 25th, 1733. Newton, as Master of the Mint, had, in 1708, felt compelled to refuse to make an issue of coin for the Isle of Man, but by 1733 there was a new Master, and I thought it was possible the Earl might have made another application to the Mint for an Island coinage, maybe with more success. I therefore wrote to the present Deputy Master of the Mint, asking whether it would be possible to have a search made for me to determine whether the Earl had made any such request, either for a finished coinage of for copper blanks.
The reply from the Mint was most helpful, for, though they had to tell me that at the period in question the Mint could not prepare copper for blanking and consequently the Earl could not have had even the blanks made there ; they gave me an additional piece of information which was of the greatest importance to the matter.
In a Report from the Receiver General, dated 1766, it was stated that £500 of this copper coin, i.e., dated 1733, was sent over by the Lord of the Isle from England, and that it was subsequently much counterfeited. Both he (the Receiver General) and the Mint-which assayed some specimens and adjudged one counterfeit-agree that it (the coinage) was very light and remarkably bad in the quality of the copper.
I put it to you, the Members present this afternoon, that if the Mint " assayed some specimens and adjudged one counterfeit " we may certainly conclude that the other specimens assayed were adjudged genuine. I think therefore it can be claimed without any qualification, that there was, ipso facto, a properly authorised copper coinage dated 1733, which has hitherto not been recognised by our writers on the subject of Manx numismatics.
But we cannot very well leave it just like that. As this £500 of copper coin was made and issued, where has it all gone to ? It is an impossibility that every single specimen of £500 worth of pennies and ha'pennies can have disappeared, leaving not one known piece for numismatists to describe, more especially as there are so many survivors of the Bath metal issue, which we now know amounted to only £400, to say nothing of all the forgeries which have survived.
Let us consider those forgeries anew ; they are copper, and they are the only Stanley copper coins dated 1733; the Receiver General and the Mint, in 1766, found the copper coinage dated 1733 to be " very light and remarkably bad in the quality of the copper," which would certainly indicate that the coins were inferior. Is not the only possible conclusion that some, at least, of the so-called forgeries (and I should say a very large proportion indeed), must be attributed to the Earl's £500 of copper pence and halfpence ? I am not suggesting that every one of the so-called forgeries must be considered to be a part of the Earl's issue of copper, for there is no doubt that some counterfeit pieces did escape the detection of the Cap- tains of the Parishes at the annual examination-there is one undoubted forgery on one of the trays I have sent round-and I would suggest that it will require much discrimination in deciding which of the copper pieces dated 1733, though bad, are genuine, and which, being even worse, are the spurious ones.
I am afraid I have spun out this paper to a tedious length; the only excuse I can offer for that, is that it seemed to me in making a claim to establish a hitherto unrecognised issue of Manx money, it was preferable to speak at some length and present all available evidence, rather than leave unexplained any point which led to the conclusions at which I ultimately arrived.
1 See Nelson, Coinage of the Isle of Man, p. 10.
2 See Train, History of the Isle of Man, 1845, Vol. II, p. 72, who gives the date as 1338. Nelson dates the coin as 1329 as above.
3 Patrons, The Earliest Coinage of the Isle of Man. 4 Train, Vol. II, p. 72.
5 Mills, Ordinances and Statute Laws of the Isle of Man, 1821, p. 111.
6 Train, Vol. II, p. 74.
8 At that period no copper pennies were issued here.
9 " to be current only in the Isle of Man " I understand to mean coins bearing the Stanley crest instead of the Queen's head, and the Three Legs.
10 " leave may be given to the Gravers or Moneyers of her Majesty's Mint ... to make any quantity of Medalls for his Lordship." (Newton).
11 Craig, Sir J. Newton at the Mint, p. 117.
Printed in England by ROBERT STOCKWELL, 5-7 Baden Place, Crosby Row, Borough, S.E.1; and published by B. A. SEABY, LTD., 65, Great Portland Street, W.1.
Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received
HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2011