tettrn in i hitur.

DECIMAL COINAGE.

London, 22d August 1855.

Sin—The problems to be solved are these: to provide a convenient mo- ney of coinage, a compendious money of account, and a popular money of parlance, or of common idiomatic every-day speech ; to retain, where pos- sible, the old-established names ; to substitute, where compelled, other names equally familiar or equally acceptable ; and to render the whole and every part harmonious and self-consistent throughout.

How is all this to be done ? By taking as a basis (the ready answer will doubtless be) one or other of the four monies of account now in use, and with aid of multiples and divisors erecting a decimal system thereon. Let us see then how this will work in practice. But first, permit me to apologize to your readers and yourself for the use of some terms, unusual certainly, probably distasteful, and perhaps at first sight seemingly superfluous. The motive that has induced their adoption, or rather the necessity that has driven me to it, is this. Each of the sys- tems under comparison has its own subdivisions, differing only from the subdivisions of other systems by fractional parts in some cases exceedingly mi- nute. These it is impossible to distinguish from one another, or to attach to them any specific idea, without attaching to each some specific discri- minative designation. For such designations recourse has been had first to English nomenclature ; then to foreign ; and where these fail, to what ap- pears to be the simplest and moat obvious analogy. Thus, for instance' the term " Florinet " is used to distinguish the Belgian and Dutch Florin of 20d from the Austrian and English of 24d.; "Suzeraine," the gold coin of 16s. 8d., from the "Sovereign" of 20s. The name "Rial or Real" is proposed be- cause the actual Real of present commerce (that of billon or vellon) is of almoat exactly the value desired in the place which this subdivision naturally occupies. For "Anna" there is a particular reason of convenience, con- nected with Indian weights and monies, into the details of which space does does not permit me here to enter. The name "Ort" is simply to supply a designation shorter than "Farthing," and to some tastes more agreeable than "Mile." The "Patagon " is a double Dollar or "Pataca." To persons ac- quainted with the Continent, the "Pistole, Ducat, Sequin, Franc, Betz, Rapp, Sou, and Liard," must all be more or less familiar. The "Guinea' speaks for itself; and so does the "Mite or Half-Farthing." Synonyms are for comparison and selection. They are the best names that I have been able to find or to invent; but one and all, they shall be gladly changed for any others that may be equally exact and more generally approved. "Si quid novisti," &e. To return to the matter in hand. The systems or scales founded on the Pound-Sterling, the Shilling, and the Penny, will be respectively as follows ; the Italics denoting names not now in use as Monies of Account or of Par- lance; and the Blanks being left for the insertion of any better names that any one else may be able to devise.

(1st.) Pound Basis-1 Pound = 10—, Florins, or Dimes = 100 or Cents = 1000 —, or Mils.

(2d.) Shilling Basis-1 —, or Ducat = 10 Shillings =100 —, or Armes = 1000—, Mites, or Half.-Farthings. (3d.) Penny Basis-1 —, Patagon, or Sequin = 10—, Francs, or Tenpennies = 100 Pennies = 1000 —, or Liards. It is evident at a glance that no one of these scales fulfils the required conditions. The first being pronounced impracticable (and by one writer dangerous) on account of its interminable fractional variations from the pre- sent shilling, penny, and farthing, it is not necessary to enter further into its merits. The defects of the other two scales are in some respects of a dif- ferent kind in both, a paucity of old terms, a superabundance of new, coins too minute for English habits at the lower end, a unit of too little value to replace, consistently with the same habits, the Pound-Sterling at the upper. The Farthing basis remains. But before exhibiting a scale founded there- on, it may be well to state briefly what appear to be the essentials of the scale required. They are—

To provide a unit corresponding in value as nearly as possible with the present unit, the pound-sterling ; To subdivide that unit by tens, for purposes mercantile, Parliamentary, and legal; To subdivide it also, for popular use, by the present numbers 20 and 12, or by such substitutes for either or both as are likely to prove most convenient and most acceptable ; To provide coins corresponding with the popular subdivisions last men- tioned, and to attach to them either the old names or such others as are likely to be most readily adopted ; To make the values such as shall either be identical with multiples of the value of the lowest denomination now in use, or be capable of mutual reconversion without difficulty, and without fractional re- mainders.

Now, to supply .literally the whole of what is desirable, is, I believe, under existing circumstances impossible. A reasonable approximation thereto may, I also believe, be attained with more or less completeness in any one of five ways, and, so far as I have been able to devise or discover, of five only. One of them, by means of a unit which, for the reasons assigned above, I have elsewhere called a " pistole or suzeraine " ; the other four by means of the thousand-farthing "guinea." They are as follows.

Monies of Coinage.

(let.) 1 Pistols or Suzeraine = 20—, Francs, or Tenpennies = 200 Pennies = 800 Farthings. (25.) 1 Guinea = 20 Shillings = 200 —, or Anna. = 1000 Farthings. (3d.) 1 Guinea = 20 Shillings = 250 Pennies = 1000 Farthings. (4th.) 1 Guinea = 25 —, Francs, or Tenpennies = 250 Pennies 1000 Farthings. (5th.) 1 Guinea = 20 Shillings = 25 —, Francs. or Tenpennies = 200 —, or Annas = 250 Pennies = 1000 Farthings. To satisfy the prescribed conditions, simultaneously with this popular Money of Coinage, must be devised a Decimal Money of Account, commen- surate and coincident therewith. According as the Pistole or the Guinea unit is adopted, it will be one or other of the following. 1 Pistols, &v.. = 10 —, Florinets, or Dimes = 100 —, Ramo, or Genies = 1000— Rapps, or Milks. 1 Guinea = 10—, Florins, or Dimes = 100 —, .Rials, or Conies = 1000 Farthings, drts, or Millet. In these scales, the Pistole equals 200 pence or 16s. &I. of our present money ; the Florinet, 20d. • the Franc, 10d. ; the Bats, 2d. ; and the Bap, four-fifths of a farthing. The Guinea is 260 pence or 20s. 10d. ; the Florni, 25d.,- the Shilling, 12ed. ; the Baal, 2d.; the Anna, lid. ; the Penny and the Farthing of the same value as at present. The reasons for proposing these names have been already stated.

Which of these five schemes is the preferable one, I leave to others to de- termine. Or rather, with the exception of the unit itself, which ought to be defined by Parliament, the entire arrangement, comprising the subdivisions of that unit and the nomenclature of the whole, will, in my opinion, be best committed to the discretionary decision of the Executive Government. But by any one of the four scales having for their unit the guinea, it appears to me that the demands of popular, of mercantile, and of scientific use, will be fairly and satisfactorily met.

If this belief is well-founded, or, in other words, if the difficulty is solved, as with deference I submit it is, long as has been the approach to the solu- tion, its principle may be very shortly explained. There are two classes of persons to be conciliated; those for whose use the penny is designed, and those for whom the guinea. The former calculate by coins; the latter, by figures.

A few words require to be added, on Decimal Money of Account, and on Coinage Proper. But these must form the subject of a separate communica- tion.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, H.

P.S. 12th September.—Since the foregoing was written, two letters have appeared in your columns, referring to mine published on 25th August; one from "G.' on the 1st, and the other from Mr. Rathbone on the 8th in- stant; each of which demands acknowledgment at my hands.

First. For any misapprehension or forgetfulness into which I may have fallen, (I assure both writers, unintentionally,) I beg very sincerely their forgiveness. Second. They will, I hope, acquit me of want of respect if I abstain from any self-explanation or defence, lest the discussion diverge from the import- ant subject of a great public measure to the very unimportant one of the comparative correctness or liability to error of your correspondent "H." Perhaps, however, I may as well observe, in passing, that the expression "480-penny" seemed to me more natural than that of "48-tenpenny"; and that 800 millions of pounds-sterling are equivalent to "upwards of 19,000 millions" not of pence but of francs. In pence, the amount would be 192,000.

Third. On reading again Mr. Rathbone's " Examination of the Report, 8ro." with his letter of last week, and his "Comparative Statement, &c.," (now seen for the first time,) it appears to me that his plan consists of two parts, corre- sponding in some sense with those indicated above ; i. e. one for dealers in small sums, or the comparatively poor ; and another for dealers in large sums or the comparatively rich. For the former, he takes the penny as his starting-point; multiplies it on one aide by 10; divides it on the other by the same number ; and thus produces a series which (commencing at the upper end) consists of members distinguished respectively by the following designations,—franc, tenpenny, or cent-cent ; penny, or ten-cent ; and cent. For the latter class, or the rich, he proposes in addition either a twenty-four-franc piece of the same value as the present pound-sterling, or a twenty-five-franc piece corresponding with what I have designated as a guinea. He leaves individuals to keep their accounts, at their own option, either in £. s. d., as at present., or in such new units and subdivisions as his new system may suggest. But if the unit adopted by any number of indi- viduals be either the pound or any other, except only the franc or tenpenny, he does not (as I understand him) propose to supply those individuals with a decimal subdivision of such unit, 1. e. with a decimal money of account. If this is a correct representation of the plan, as I hope and believe it will be acknowledged to be, does it not amount to somethins* like the giving of decimals to the poorer class, and withholding them from the more wealthy.? Bestowing the decimal system on those who have never asked for it, and in -whose habits, in the opinion of many, (apparently of G. among the num- ber, see his letter of 4th August,) "the practice of purchasing articles by the dozen and the half-dozen, and of subdividing by halves and by quarters," 1. e. a preference for the duodecimal and the binary systems, is "too strongly rooted" to be readily abandoned ? Refusing to bestow decimalism (except partially) on those by whom its introduction is so strenuously advocated, and for whose large pecuniary transactions it is usually considered to be so pecu- liarly fitted ?

The points of resemblance and of dissimilarity between the 25-franc variety of this plan, and that marked above as the (4th) will be respectively ap- parent, without much laboured explanation or analysis. Both recognize a unit of coinage, (and if preferred, of accounts also,) of the value of 250 pence. Both admit the combination of two systems, or two parts of one system ; one part decimal or scientific, and the other non-decimal or popular. The one plan divides the penny into tenths, called cents of a franc &c., and erects thereon a decimal scale of three degrees,—cent,

and id franc; with the popular 25-franc or guinea, if desired, super- added. The other plan divides the penny into fourths, called farthings, and erects thereon a decimal scale of four degrees,—farthing, real, florin, and guinea; with the popular penny and franc, if desired, interposed. The former, when the decimal or integer point is used in notation, inserts it be- tween the franc and the penny ; leaving below it two places of subsidiary figures. The latter, between the guinea and the florin; leaving three sub- sidiary figure-places below. Fourth. In G.'s letter of 27th August allusion is made to "the derange- ment which must arise from renaming and altering the value of the great bulk of the smaller monies of coinage, accounts, and parlance proposed by H. in common with the advocates of the pound and nail scheme." Upon which it may be observed, that in no scheme purely decimal is it pos- sible to retain, without chansee of value, more than one of the four present monies of account ; as is evident, not only from the comparative scales ex- hibited above, but from the fact of no one of the said monies being a decuple of another.

That as monies of coinage and of parlance, the name of "shilling" is retained in three out of the five schemes suggested above ; " penny and "guinea," each in four ; and " farthing " in all five ; the value of the farthing and the penny remaining always absolutely unchanged.

Fifth. In the letter of 4th August, G. goes beyond Mr. Rathbone in the upward application of the decimal principle, and proposes a coin of the value of 4 decimal guineas (5 piatoles) or 1000 pence ; in this agreeing with Mr. Yates, (whose work "On the French System, &c.," I regret not to have seen earlier,) who calls the said coin a • Royal." In which pro- posal, whatever the account-uniteventually decided on, I beg to say I quite agree also. But this suggests the question—Why not adopt this multiple of a penny as the unit or integer ot account, as well as of coinage ? With regard to which I will simply say, that if any one of these gentlemen, advocates of the penny basis, will bring forward such a plan, prove it to be feasible, and only adapt it to the standards proposed in the little work to which I have be- fore alluded, (the very best for the purpose,) I will not only cheerfully sur- render the thousand-farthing unit, heretofore so much desired, but will tender him, in support of its thousand-penny rival, toy humble but most hearty concurrence and cooperation. That the standards referred to are really the best for the purpose stated, I hope to show very briefly but very clearly in another letter. It is right, however, to add, that, as a money of account, I apprehend that the immediate introduction of a thousand-penny unit is not feasible.