Chapter VIII: Appendix: To the Memoir (3)

* 25E.3. st 5. c. 2; 5 El c. 11; 18 El. c. 1; 8 and 9 W. 3.
c. 26; 15. and 16 G 2. c. 28; 7 Ann. q. 25. By the laws of
Æthelstan and Canute, this was punished by cutting off the
hand. ‘Gifse mynetereful wurthe sleaman tha hand of, the he
that fil mid worthe and sette iippon tha rnynet smithlhan.’
In English characters and words ‘if the minler foul
[Criminal] wert, slay the hand off, that he the foul [crime]
with wrought, and set upon the mint-smithery.’ LI,iEthelst.
14. ‘And selhe ofer this false wyrce, tholige thaera handa
the he thaet false mid worhte.’ ‘Et si quis prater hanc,
falsam fecerit, perdat manum quacum falsam confecit.’ LI.
Cnuti, 8. It had been death by the LI. Æihelredi, sub fine.
By those of H. 1. ‘Si quis cum falso deuario inventus
fueril--fiat justitia mea, saltern de dextro pugno et de
testiculis.’ Anno 1108. ‘Opera prelium vero est audire quam
severus rex fuerit in pravos. Monetarios enim fere omnes
totius Angliee fecit ementulari, et manus dextras abscindi,
quia monetam furtive corruperant.’ Wilkins ib. et anno 1125.
When the Common law became settled, it appears to have been
punishable by death. ‘Est aliud genus crirninis quod sub
nomine falsi continetur, et tangit coronam domini regis, et
nlfimum indncit supplicium, sicut de illis qui falsam
fabricant monetasn, et qui de re non reproba, faciunt
reprobam; sicut sunt retonsores deriarinruno’ Bract. L. 3. c
3. § 2. Fleta, L. 1. c. 22 § 4 Lord Hale thinks it was
deemed petty treason at common law. 1 H. P. C. 220, 224. The
bringing in false money with intent to merchandise, and make
payment of it is treason, by 25 E. 3. But the best proof of
the intention, is the act of passing it, and why not leave
room for repentance here, as in other cases of felonies
intended? I H P. C. 229.

** Clipping, filing, rounding, impairing, scaling,
lightening, (the words in the statutes) are included in
‘diminishing;’ gilding, in the word ‘casing;’ coloring in
the word ‘washing;’ and falsifying or marking, is
counterfeiting.’

Whosoever committeth Arson,* shall be condemned to hard labor five years in the public works, and shall make good the loss of the sufferers threefold.**

*43 El. c. 13. confined to four counties. 22 ^ 23 Car. 2. c.
7; 9 G. 1. c. 22, 9 G. 3. c. 29.

** Arson was a felony at Common law--3 Inst. 66; punished by
a fine, Ll. Æthelst. 6. But LI. Cnuti, 61. make it a ‘scetus
inexpiable.’ ‘Hus brec and baernet and open thyfth and
asbereniorth and hlaford swice after woruld laga is
boileds.’ Word for word, ‘House break and burnt, and open
theft, and manifest murdher, and lord-treachery, after
world’s law is bootless.’ Bracton says, it was punished by
death. ‘Si quis turbida seditione iricendium fecerit
nequiter et in felonia, vel ob inimicitias, vel praedandi
causa, capital puniatur pcena vel sententia.’ Bract. L. 3.
c. 27. He defines it as commissible by burning ‘cedes alien
as.’ Ib. Britton, c. 9. ‘Ausi soitenquis de ceux que
felonise-ment en temps de pees eient a litre blees ou autre
messons ars, et ceux que ser-rount de ceo alteyniz, soient
ars issint que eux soient punys par mesme cele chose dount
ils pecherent.’ Fleia, L. I. c. 37. is a copy of Bracton.
The Mirror, c. 1. § 8. says, ‘Ardours sont que ardent cilie,
ville, maison home, maison beast, ou auters chatelx, de lour
felonie en temps de pace pour haine ou vengeance.’ Again, c.
2. § II., pointing oul the words of the appellor ‘jeo dise
que Sebright, &c. entiel meas. on ou hiens mist de feu.’
Coke, 3 Inst. 67. says, ‘The ancient authors extended this
felony further than houses, viz. to stacks of corn, waynes
or carts of coal, wood, or other goods.’ He defines it as
commissibie, not only on the inset houses, parcel of the
mansion-house, but the outset also, as barn, stable, cow-
house, sheep-house, dairy-house, mill-house, and the like,
parcel of the mansion house.’ But ‘burning of a barn, being
no parcel of a mansion-house, is no felony,’ unless there be
corn or hay within it. Ib. The 22 k. 23 Car. 2. and 9 G. 1.
are the principal statutes against arson. They extend the
offence beyond the Common law.

If any person shall, within this Commonwealth, or, being a citizen thereof, shall without the same, wilfully destroy,* or run** away with any sea-vessel, or goods laden on board thereof, or plunder or pilfer any wreck, he shall be condemned to hard labor five years in the public works, and shall make good the loss of the sufferers threefold.

* Ann. st. 2. c. 9. 12 Ann. c. 18. 4 G. 1. c. 12. 26 G. 2.
c. 19.

** 11 h 12 W.3. c.7.

Whosoever committeth Robbery,* shall be condemned to hard labor four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the persons injured.

* Robbery was a felony at Common law. 3 Inst. 68. ‘Scelus
inexpiable,’ by the LI. Cnuti. 61. [See before in Arson.] It
was punished with death. Briit c. 15, ‘De robbours et de
larouns et de semblables mesfesours, soitaussi
ententivernent enquis--et tauntost soient ceux robbours
juges a la morl.’ Fleta says, ‘Si quis conviclus fuerit de
bonis viri robbatis vel asportatis ad sectam regis judicium
capitale subibit.’ L. 1. c. 39. See also Bract. L. 3. c. 32
§ I.

Whatsoever act, if committed on any mansion-house, would be deemed Burglary,* shall be Burglary, if committed on any other house; and he who is guilty of Burglary, shall be condemned to hard labor four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the persons injured.

* Burglary was felony at the Common law. 3 Inst. 63 It was
not distinguished by ancient authors, except the Mirror,
from simple House-breaking, ib. 65. Burglary and House-
breaking were called ‘Hamsockne.’ ‘Diximus etiam de pacis
violatione et de immunitatibus domus, si quis hoc in
posterum fecetit ut perdat ornne quod habet, et sit in regis
arbitro utrum vitam habeat.’ ‘Eac we quasdon be mundbryce
and be ham socnum,sethe hit ofer this do tha:t he dolie
enlles thces the age, and sy on Cyninges Jome hwsether be
life age: and we quoth of mound-breach, and of home-seeking
he who it after this do, that he dole all that he owe
[owns], and is in kings doom whether he life owes [owns].’
LI. Eadmundi, c. 6 and see LI. Cnuti. 61. ‘bus btec,’ in
notesion Arson, ante. A Burglar was also called a Burgessor.
‘Et soit enquis de Burgessours et sunt tenus Burgessours
trestous ceux que felonisement en temps de pees debrusornt
esglises ou auter mesons, ou murs ou portes de nos cytes, ou
de nos Burghes.’ Britt. c. 10. ‘Burglaria est nocturna
diruptio habitaculi alicujus, vel ecclesise, etiam murorum,
portarurnve civitatis aut burgi, ad feloniam aliquam
perpetrandam. Noclanter dico, recentiores se-cutus; veteres
enim hoc non adjungunt.’ Spelm. Gloss, verb. Burglaria. It
was punished with death. Ib. citn. from the office of a
Coroner. It may be committed in the outset houses, as well
as inset, 3 Inst. 65. though not under the same roof or
contiguous, provided they be within the Curtilage or Home-
stall. 4 BI. 225. As by the Common law all felonies were
clergiable, the stat. 23 H. 8. c. 1; 5 E. 6. c. 9. and 18
El. c. 7. first distinguished tfiem, by taking the clerical
privilege of impunity from the principals, and 3 & 4 W. M.
c. 9. from accessories before the fact. No statute defines
what Burglary is. The 12 Ann. c. 7. decides the doubt
whether, where breaking is subsequent to entry, it is
Burglary. Bacon’s Elements had affirmed, and T. H. P. C.
554. had denied it. Our bill must distinguish them by
different degrees of punishment.

Whatsoever act, if committed in the night time, shall constitute the crime of Burglary, shall, if committed in the day, be deemed House-breaking;* and whosoever is guilty thereof, shall be condemned to hard labor three years in the public works, and shall make reparation to the persons injured.

* At the Common law, the offence of House-breaking was not
distinguished from Burglary, and neither of them from any
other larceny. The statutes at first took away clergy from
Burglary, which made a leading distinction between the two
offences. Later statutes, however, have taken clergy from so
many cases of House-breaking, as nearly to bring the
offences together again. These are 23 H. 8. c. 1; 1 E. 6. c.
12; 5 k 6 E. 6. c. 9; 3 & 4 W. M. c. 9; 39 El. c. 15; 10&11
W. 3. c.23; 12 Ann. c. 7. See Burr. 428; 4 Bl. 240. The
circumstances, which in these statutes characterize the
offence, seem to have been occasional and unsystematical.
The houses on which Burglary may be committed, and the
circumstances which constitute that crime, being
ascertained, it will be better to define House-breoking by
the same subjects and circumstances, and let the crimes be
distinguished only by the hour at which they are committed,
and the degree of punishment.

Whosoever shall be guilty of Horse-stealing,* shall be condemned to hard labor three years in the public works, and shall make reparation to the person injured.

* The offence of Horse-stealing seems properly
distinguishable from other larcenies, here, where these
animals generally run at large, the temptation being so
great and frequent, and the facility of commission so
remarkable. See 1 E. 6. c. 12; 23 E. 6. c. 33; 31 El. c. 12.

Grand Larceny* shall be where the goods stolen are of the value of five dollars; and whosoever shall be guilty thereof, shall be forthwith put in the pillory for one half hour, shall be condemned to hard labor** two years in the public works, and shall make reparation to the person injured.

* The distinction between grand and petty larceny is very
ancient. At first 8d. was the sum which constituted grand
larceny. LI. Ælhelst. c. 1. ‘Ne parcatur ulli furi, qui
furtum manutenens captus sit, supra 12 annos nafo, et supra
8 denarios.’ Afterwards, in the same king’s reign, it was
raised to 12d. ‘Non parcaturalicui furi ultra 12 denarios,
et ultra 12 annos nato--ut occide-mus ilium et capiamus omne
quod possidet, et inprimis sumamus rei furto ablatse pretium
ab hserede, ac dividatur postea reliquum in duas partes, una
pars uxori, si munda, et facinoris conscia non sit; et
residuum in duo, dimi-dium capiat rex, dimidium societas.’
LI. Æthelst. Wilkins, p. 65. VOL. I. 17

** LI. Inse, c. 7. ‘Si quis furetur ita ut uxor ejus et
infans ipsius nesciani, solvat 60. solidos pcenae loco. Si
autem furetur testantibus omuibus haere-dibus suis, abeant
omnes in servilutem.’ Ina was King of the West Saxons, and
began to reign A. C. 688. After the union of the Heptarchy,
i. e. temp. Æthelst. inter 924 and 940, we find it
punishable with death as above. So it was inter 1017 and
1035, i. e. temp. Cnuti. LI. Cnuti 61. cited in notes on
Arson. In the time of William the Conqueror, it seems lo
have been made punishable by fine only. LI. Gul. Cohq. apud
Wilk. p. 218. 220. This commutation, however, was taken away
by LI. H. 1. anno 1108. ‘Si quis in furto vel latro-cinio
deprehensus fuisset, suspenderetur: sublata wirgildorum, id
est, pecu-niarse redemptions lege.’ Larceny is the felonious
taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another.
1. As to the taking, the 3 & 4 VV. M. c. 9. § 5, is not
additional to the Common law, but declaratory of it; because
where only the care or use, and not the possession, of
things is delivered, to take them was larceny at the Common
law. The 33 H. 6. c. 1 and 21 11. 8. c. 7., indeed., have
added to the Common law by making it larceny in a servant to
convert things of his master’s. But quære, if they should be
imitated more than as to other breaches of trust in general.
2. As to the subject of larceny, 4 G. 2. c.32; 6 G. 3. c. 36
48; 43 El. c. 7; 15 Car. 2. c. 2; 23 G. 2 c. 26; 31 G. 2. c.
35; 9 G. 3. c. 41; 25 G. 2. c. 10. have extended larceny to
things of various sorts, either real, or fixed to the
realty. But the enumeration is unsystematical, and in this
country, where the produce of the earth is so spontaneous as
to have rendered things of this kind scarcely a breach of
civility or good manners in the eyes of the people, quære,
if it would not too much enlarge the field of Criminal law?
The same may be questioned of 9 G. J. c. 22; 13 Car. 2. c.
10; 10 G. 2. c. 32; 5 G. 3. c. 14; 22 h 23 Car. 2. c. 25; 37
E. 3. c. 19. making it felony to steal animals ferte
natures.

Petty Larceny shall be, where the goods stolen are of less value than five dollars; and whosoever shall be guilty thereof, shall be forthwith put in the pillory for a quarter of an hour, shall be condemned to hard labor one year in the public works, and shall make reparation to the person injured.

Robbery* or larceny of bonds, bills obligatory, bills of exchange, or promissory notes for the payment of money or tobacco, lottery tickets, paper bills issued in the nature of money, or of certificates of loan on the credit of this Commonwealth, or of all or any of the United States of America, or Inspectors’ notes for tobacco, shall be punished in the same manner as robbery,or larceny of the money or tobacco due on or represented by such papers.* 2 G. 2. c. 25 §3; 7 G 3. c. 50.

Buyers* and receivers of goods taken by way of robbery or larceny, knowing them to have been so taken, shall be deemed accessaries to such robbery or larceny after the fact.

* 3 &. 4 W. & M. c. 9. § 4; 5 Ann. c. 31. § 5; 4 G. 1. c.
11. § 1.

Prison breakers,* also, shall be deemed accessaries after the fact, to traitors or felons whom they enlarge from prison.**

* 1 E. 2.

** Breach of prison at the Common law was capital, without
regard to the crime for which the party was committed. ‘Cum
pro criminis qualitate in carcerem recepti fuerint,
conspiraverint (ut ruptis vinculis aut fracto carcere)
evadant, atnplius (quam causa pro qua recepti sunt exposuit)
puniendi sunt, videlicet ultimo supplicio, quamvis ex eo
crimine innocentes inveniantur, propter quod inducti sunt in
carcerem et imparcati.’ Bracton L. 3, c. 9. § 4. Britt. c.
11. Fleta, L. 1. c. 26. § 4. Yet in the Y. B. Hill. 1 H. 7.
2. Hussey says, that, by the opinion of Billing and Choke,
and all the Justices, it was a felony in strangers only, but
not in the prisoner himself. S. C. Fitz. Abr. Co-ron. 48.
They are principal felons, not accessaries, ib. Whether it
was felony in the prisoner at Common law, is doubted. Stam.
P. C. 30. b. The Mirror c. 5. § 1. says, ‘Abusion est a
tener escape de prisoner, ou de bruserie del gaole pur peche
mortal 1, car eel usage nest garrant per nul ley, ne in nul
part est use forsque in cest realme, et en France, ems
[mais] est leu garrantie de ceo faire per la ley de nature’
2 Inst. 589. The stat. 1 E. 2, ‘de fragentibus priso-nam,’
‘restrained the judgment of life and limb for prison-
breaking, to cases where the offence of the prisoner
required such judgment.’

It is not only vain but wicked, in a legislator to frame
laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them
with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in
order to punish them. The law of nature impels every one to
escape from confinement; it should not, therefore, be
subjected to punishment. Let the legislator restrain his
criminal by walls, not by parchment. As to strangers
breaking prison to enlarge an offender, they should, and may
be fairly considered as accessaries after the fact. This
bill saying nothing of the prisoner releasing himself by
breach of jail, he will have the benefit of the first
section of the bill, which repeals the judgment of life and
death at the Common law.

All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their understanding by exercise of the pretended arts of witchcraft, conjuration, enchantment, or sorcery, or by pretended prophecies, shall be punished by ducking and whipping, at the discretion of a jury, not, exceeding fifteen stripes.*

* ‘Gifwiecan owwe wigleras mansworan, owwe morthwyrhtan owwe
fule afylede eebere horcwenan ahwhar on lande wurthan
agytene, thonne fyrsie man of earde, and claensie lha.
theode, owwe on earde forfare hi mid ealle, buton hi
geswican and the deoper gebetan:’ ‘if witches, or weirds,
man-swearers, or murther-wroughters, or foul, defiled, open
whore-queens, ay--where in the land were gotten, then force
them off earth, and cleanse the nation, or in earth forth-
fare them withal, buton they beseech, and deeply better.’
LI. Ed. et Guthr. c. 11. ‘Saga; mulieres barbara
factitantes sacrificia, aut pestiferi, si cui mortem
intulerint, neque id inficiari poterint, capitis pcena
esto.’ LI. Aethelst. c. 6. apud Lambard. LI. Aelfr. 30. LI.
Cnuti. c. 4. ‘Mesmo eel jugement (d’etrears) eyent
sorcers, et sorceresses,’ &c. ut supra. Fleta tit et ubi
supra. 3 Inst. 44. Trial of witches before Hale, in 1664.
The statutes 33 H. 8. c. 8. 5. El. c. 16 and 1. Jac. 1. c.
12. seem to be only in confirmation of the Common law. 9 G.
2. c. 25. punishes them with pillory and a year’s
imprisonment 3 E. 6 c 15. 5 El. c. 15. punish fond,
fantastical, and false prophecies, by fine and imprisonment.

If the principal offenders be fled,* or secreted from justice, in any case not touching life or member, the accessaries may, notwithstanding, be prosecuted as if their principal were convicted.**

* 1 Ann. c. 9. § 2.

**As every treason includes within it a misprision of
treason, so every felony includes a misprision, or
misdemeanor. 1 Hale P. C. 652. 75S. ‘Licet fuerit felonia,
tamen in eo continetur misprisio.’ 2 R. 3.10. Both principal
and accessary, therefore, may be proceeded against in any
case, either for felony, or misprision, at the Common law.
Capital cases not being mentioned here, accessaries to them
will of course be triable for misprisions, if the offender
flies.

If any offender stand mute of obstinacy,* or challenge preremp-torily more of the jurors than by law he may, being first warned of the consequence thereof, the court shall proceed as if he had confessed the charge,**

* 3E. I.e. 12.

** Whether the judgment of penance lay at Common law. See 2
Inst. 178.2. H. P. C. 321. 4 Bl. 322. It was given on
standing mute: but on challenging more than the legal
number, whether that sentence, or sentence of death is to be
given, seems doubtful. 2 H. P. C. 316. Quære, whether it
would not be better to consider the supernumerary challenge
as merely void, and to proceed in the trial. Quære too, in
case of silence.

Pardon and privilege of clergy shall henceforth be abolished, that none may be induced to injure through hope of impunity. But if the verdict be against the defendant, and the court, before whom the offence is heard and determined, shall doubt that it may be untrue for defect of testimony, or other cause, they may direct a new trial to be had.*

* ‘Cum Clericus sic de crimine convictus degradetur, non
sequitur aliapoe-na pro uno delicto, vel pluribus ante
degradationem perpetratis. Satis enim sufficit ei pro pcena
degradatio, quse est magna capitis diminutio, nisi forte
convictus fuerit de apostatia, quia hinc primo degradetur,
et postea per manum laicalem comburetur, secundum quod
accidit in concilio Oxoni celebrato a bonas memoriae S.
Cantuaren. Archiepiscopo de quodam diacono, qui seapos-
tatavit pro quadam Judaea; qui cum esset per episcopum
degradatus, statim fuit igni traditus per manum laicalem.’
Bract. L. 3. c. 9. § 2. ‘Et mesme eel jugement (i. e. qui
ils soient ars) eye n’t sorcers et sorceresses, et sodomites
et mescreauntz apertement atteyntz.’ Britt. c. 9.
‘Christiani autem Apostatae, sortilegii, et hujusmodi
detractari debent et comburi.’ Fleta, L. 1. c. 37. § 2. see
3 Inst. 39; 12 Rep. 92; 1 H. P. C. 393. The extent of the
clerical privilege at the Common law, 1. As to the crimes,
seems very obscure and uncertain. It extended to no case
where the judgment was not of life or limb. Note in 2. H. P.
C. 326. This, therefore, excluded it in trespass, petty
larceny, or killing _se defendendo_. In high treason against
the person of the King, it seems not to have been allowed.
Note 1 H. P. C. 185. Treasons, therefore, not against the
King’s person immediately, petty treasons and felonies, seem
to have been the cases where it was allowed; and even of
those, not for _insidiatio viarum, depopulatio agrorum, or
combustio domorum_. The statute de Clero, 25 E. 3. st. 3. c.
4. settled the law on this head. 2. As to the persons, it
extended to all clerks, always, and toties quoiies. 2 H. P.
C. 374. To nuns also. Fitz. Abr. Coron. 461. 22 E. 3. The
clerical habit and tonsure were considered as evidence of
the person being clerical. 26 Assiz. 19 & 20 E. 2. Fitz.
Coron. 233. By the 9 E. 4. 28. b. 34 H. 6. 49. a. b. simple
reading became the evidence. This extended impunity to a
great number of laymen, and toties quoties. The stat. 4 H.
7. c. 13. directed that real clerks should upon a second
arraignment, produce their orders, and all others to be
burnt in the hand with M. or T. on the first allowance of
clergy, and not to be admitted to it a second time. A
heretic, Jew, or Turk, (as being incapable of orders) could
not have clergy. H Co. Rep. 29. b. But a Greek, or other
alien, reading in a book of his own country, might. Bro.
Clergie. 20. So a blind man, if he could speak Latin. Ib.
21. qu, 11. Rep. 29. b. The orders entitling the party were
bishops, priests, deacons, and sub-deacons, the inferior
being reckoned Clerici in minoribus. 2 H. P. C. 373. Quære,
however, if this distinction is not founded on the stat. 23.
H. 8. c. 1; 25. H. 8. c. 32. By merely dropping all the
statutes, it should seem that none but clerks would be
entitled to this privilege, and that they would, toties
quoties.

No attainder shall work corruption of blood in any case.

In all cases of forfeiture, the widow’s dower shall be saved to her, during her title thereto; after which it shall be disposed of as if no such saving had been.

The aid of Counsel,* and examination of their witnesses on oath, shall be allowed to defendants in criminal prosecutions.

* 1 Ann. c. 9.

Slaves guilty of any offence* punishable in others by labor in the public works, shall be transported to such parts in the West Indies, South America, or Africa, as the Governor shall direct, there to be continued in slavery.

* Manslaghter, counterfeiting, arson, asportation of
vessels, robbery, burglary, house-breaking, horse-stealing,
larceny.

[NOTE F.]--Coinage for the United States

_On the Establishment of a Money Unit, and of a Coinage for the United States_.

In fixing the Unit of Money, these circumstances are of principal importance.

I. That it be of _convenient_ size to be applied as a measure to the common money transactions of life.

II. That its parts and multiplies be in an _easy proportion_ to each other, so as to facilitate the money arithmetic;

III. That the Unit and its parts, or divisions, be _so nearly of the value of some of the known coins_, as that they may be of easy adoption for the people.

The Spanish Dollar seems to fulfil all these conditions.

I. Taking into our view all money transactions, great and small, I question if a common measure of more _convenient size_ than the Dollar could be proposed. The value of 100, 1000, 10,000 dollars is well estimated by the mind; so is that of the tenth or the hundredth of a dollar. Few transactions are above or below these limits. The expediency of attending to the size of the Money Unit will be evident to any one who will consider how inconvenient it would be to a manufacturer or merchant, if instead of the yard for measuring cloth, either the inch or the mile had been made the Unit of Measure.

II. The most _easy ratio_ of multiplication and division is that by ten. Every one knows the facility of Decimal Arithmetic. Every one remembers, that, when learning Money-Arithmetic, he used to be puzzled with adding the farthings, taking out the fours and carrying them on; adding the pence, taking out the twelves and carrying them on; adding the shillings, taking out the twenties and carrying them on; but when he came to the pounds, where he had only tens to carry forward, it was easy and free from error. The bulk of mankind are school-boys through life. These little perplexities are always great to them. And even mathematical heads feel the relief of an easier, substituted for a more difficult process. Foreigners, too, who trade or travel among us, will find a great facility in understanding our coins and accounts from this ratio of subdivision. Those who have had occasion to convert the Livres, sols, and deniers of the French; the Gilders, stivers, and frenings of the Dutch; the Pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings of these several States, into each other, can judge how much they would have been aided, had their several subdivisions been in a decimal ratio. Certainly, in all cases, where we are free to choose between easy and difficult modes of operation, it is most rational to choose the easy. The Financier, therefore, in his report, well proposes that our Coins should be in decimal proportions to one another. If we adopt the Dollar for our Unit, we should strike four coins, one of gold, two of silver, and one of copper, viz.

1. A golden piece, equal in value to ten dollars:

2. The Unit or Dollar itself, of silver:

3. The tenth of a Dollar, of silver also:

4. The hundreth of a Dollar, of copper.

Compare the arithmetical operations, on the same sum of money expressed in this form, and expressed in the pound sterling and its divisions.

A bare inspection of the above operations, will evince the labor which is occasioned by subdividing the Unit into 20ths, 240ths, and 960ths, as the English do, and as we have done; and the ease of subdivision in a decimal ratio. The same difference arises in making payment. An Englishman, to pay £8 13s. 11d. 1/2qrs. must find, by calculation, what combination of the coins of his country will pay this sum; but an American, having the same sum to pay, thus expressed $38.65, will know, by inspection only, that three golden pieces, eight units or dollars, six tenths, and five coppers, pay it precisely.

III. The third condition required is, that the Unit, its multiples, and subdivisions, coincide in value with some of the known coins so nearly, that the people may, by a quick reference in the mind, estimate their value. If this be not attended to, they will be very long in adopting the innovation, if ever they adopt it. Let us examine, in this point of view, each of the four coins proposed.

1. The golden piece will be 1/5 more than a half joe and 1/15 more than a double guinea. It will be readily estimated, then, by reference to either of them; but more readily and accurately as equal to ten dollars.

2. The Unit, or Dollar, is a known coin, and the most familiar of all to the minds of the people. It is already adopted from South to North; has identified our currency, and therefore happily offers itself as a Unit already introduced. Our public debt, our requisitions, and their apportionments, have given it actual and long possession of the place of Unit. The course of our commerce, too, will bring us more of this than of any other foreign coin, and therefore renders it more worthy of attention. I know of no Unit which can be proposed in competition with the Dollar, but the Pound. But what is the Pound? 1547 grains of fine silver in Georgia; 1289 grains in Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire; 1031 grains in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; 966 grains in North Carolina and New York. Which of these shall we adopt? To which State give that pre-eminence of which all are so jealous? And on which impose the difficulties of a new estimate of their corn, their cattle, and other commodities? Or shall we hang the pound sterling, as a common badge, about all their necks? This contains 1718 grains of pure silver. It is difficult to familiarize a new coin to the people; it is more difficult to familiarize them to a new coin with an old name. Happily, the Dollar is familiar to them all, and is already as much referred to for a measure of value, as their respective provincial pounds.

3. The tenth will be precisely the Spanish bit, or half pistereen. This is a coin perfectly familiar to us all. When we shall make a new coin, then, equal in value to this, it will be of ready estimate with the people.

4. The hundredth, or copper, will differ little from the copper of the four Eastern States, which is 1/108 of a dollar; still less from the penny of New York and North Carolina, which is 1/96 of a dollar; and somewhat more from the penny or copper of Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, which is 1/90 of a dollar. It will be about the medium between the old and the new coppers of these States, and will therefore soon be substituted for them both. In Virginia, coppers have never been in use. It will be as easy, therefore, to introduce them there of one value as of another. The copper coin proposed, will be nearly equal to three fourths of their penny, which is the same with the penny lawful of the Eastern States.

A great deal of small change is useful in a State, and tends to reduce the price of small articles. Perhaps it would not be amiss to coin three, more pieces of silver, one of the value of five tenths, or half a dollar, one of the value of two tenths, which would be equal to the Spanish pistereen, and one of the value of five coppers, which would be equal to the Spanish half-bit. We should then have five silver coins, viz.

1. The Unit or Dollar:

2. The half dollar or five tenths:

3. The double tenth, equal to 2/10, or one fifth of a dollar, or to the pistereen:

4. The tenth, equal to a Spanish bit:

5. The five copper piece, equal to 5/100 or one twentieth of a dollar, or the half-bit.

The plan reported by the Financier is worthy of his sound judgment. It admits, however, of objection, in the size of the Unit. He proposes that this shall be the 1440th part of a dollar; so that it will require 1440 of his units to make the one before proposed. He was led to adopt this by a mathematical attention to our old currencies, all of which this Unit will measure without leaving a fraction. But as our object is to get rid of those currencies, the advantage derived from this coincidence will soon be past, whereas the inconveniences of this Unit will for ever remain, if they do not altogether prevent its introduction. It is defective in two of the three requisites of a Money Unit. 1. It is inconvenient in its application to the ordinary money transactions. 10,000 dollars will require eight figures to express them, to wit, 14,400,000 units. A horse or bullock of eighty dollars’ value, will require a notation of six figures, to wit, 115,200 units. As a money of account, this will be laborious, even when facilitated by the aid of decimal arithmetic: as a common measure of the value of property, it will be too minute to be comprehended by the people. The French are subjected to very laborious calculations, the Livre being their ordinary money of account, and this but between 1/5 and 1/6 of a dollar; but what will be our labors, should our money of account be 1/1440 of a dollar only? 2. It is neither equal, nor near to any of the known coins in value.

If we determine that a Dollar shall be our Unit, we must then say with precision what a Dollar is. This coin, struck at different times, of different weights and fineness, is of different values. Sir Isaac Newton’s assay and representation to the Lords of the Treasury, in 1717, of those which he examined, make their values as follows:

The Seville piece of eight . . . . 387 grains of pure silver
The Mexico piece of eight . . . . 385 1/2 ”
The Pillar piece of eight . . . . 385 3/4 ”
The new Seville piece of eight . . 308 7/10 ”

The Financier states the old Dollar as containing 376 grains of fine silver, and the new 365 grains. If the Dollars circulating among us be of every date equally, we should examine the quantity of pure metal in each, and from them form an average for our Unit. This is a work proper to be committed to mathematicians as well as merchants, and which should be decided on actual and accurate experiment.

The quantum of alloy is also to be decided. Some is necessary, to prevent the coin from wearing too fast; too much, fills our pockets with copper, instead of silver. The silver coin assayed by Sir Isaac Newton, varied from 1 1/2 to 76 pennyweights alloy, in the pound troy of mixed metal. The British standard has 18 dwt.; the Spanish coins assayed by Sir Isaac Newton, have from 18 to 19 1/2 dwt.; the new French crown has in fact 19 1/2, though by edict it should have 20 dwt., that is 1/12.

The taste of our countrymen will require, that their furniture plate should be as good as the British standard. Taste cannot be controlled by law. Let it then give the law, in a point which is indifferent to a certain degree. Let the Legislatures fix the alloy of furniture plate at 18 dwt., the British standard, and Congress that of their coin at one ounce in the pound, the French standard. This proportion has been found convenient for the alloy of gold coin, and it will simplify the system of our mint to alloy both metals in the same degree. The coin too, being the least pure, will be the less easily melted into plate. These reasons are light, indeed, and, of course, will only weigh, if no heavier ones can be opposed to them.

The proportion between the values of gold and silver is a mercantile problem altogether. It would be inaccurate to fix it by the popular exchanges of a half Joe for eight dollars, a Louis for four French crowns, or five Louis for twenty-three dollars. The first of these, would be to adopt the Spanish proportion between gold and silver; the second, the French; the third, a mere popular barter, wherein convenience is consulted more than accuracy. The legal proportion in Spain is 16 for 1; in England, 15 1/2 for 1; in France, 15 for 1. The Spaniards and English are found, in experience, to retain an over proportion of gold coins, and to lose their silver. The French have a greater proportion of silver. The difference at market has been on the decrease. The Financier states it at present, as at 141/2 for one. Just principles will lead us to disregard legal proportions altogether; to inquire into the market price of gold, in the several countries with which we shall principally be connected in commerce, and to take an average from them. Perhaps we might, with safety, lean to a proportion somewhat above par for gold, considering our neighborhood and commerce with the sources of the coins, and the tendency which the high price of gold in Spain has, to draw thither all that of their mines, leaving silver principally for our and other markets. It is not impossible that 15 for 1, may be found an eligible proportion. I state it, however, as a conjecture only.

As to the alloy for gold coin, the British is an ounce in the pound; the French, Spanish, and Portuguese differ from that, only from a quarter of a grain, to a grain and a half. I should, therefore, prefer the British, merely because its fraction stands in a more simple form, and facilitates the calculations into which it enters.

Should the Unit be fixed at 365 grains of pure silver, gold at 15 for 1, and the alloy of both be one twelfth, the weights of the coins will be as follows:

The quantity of fine silver which shall constitute the Unit, being-settled, and the proportion of the value of gold, to that of silver; a table should be formed from the assay before suggested, classing the several foreign coins according to their fineness, declaring the worth of a pennyweight or grain in each class, and that they shall be lawful tenders at those rates, if not clipped or otherwise diminished; and where diminished, offering their value for them at the mint, deducting the expense of re-coinage. Here the Legislatures should co-operate with Congress, in providing that no money be received or paid at their treasuries, or by any of their officers, or any bank, but on actual weight; in making it criminal, in a high degree, to diminish their own coins, and, in some smaller degree, to offer them in payment when diminished.

That this subject may be properly prepared and in readiness for Congress to take up at their meeting in November, something must now be done. The present session drawing to a close, they probably would not choose to enter far into this undertaking themselves. The Committee of the States, however, during the recess, will have time to digest it thoroughly, if Congress will fix some general principles for their government. Suppose they be instructed,--

To appoint proper persons to assay and examine, with the utmost accuracy practicable, the Spanish milled dollars of different dates in circulation with us.

To assay and examine, in like manner, the fineness of all the other coins which may be found in circulation within these states.

To report to the Committee the result of these assays, by them to be laid before Congress.

To appoint, also, proper persons to inquire what are the proportions between the values of fine gold and fine silver, at the markets of the several countries with which we are, or probably may be, connected in commerce; and what would be a proper proportion here, having regard to the average of their values at those markets, and to other circumstances, and to report the same to the Committee, by them to be laid before Congress.

To prepare an Ordinance for establishing the Unit of Money within these States; for subdividing it; and for striking coins of gold, silver, and copper, on the following principles.

That the Money Unit of these States shall be equal in value to a Spanish milled dollar containing so much fine silver as the assay, before directed, shall show to be contained, on an average, in dollars of the several dates in circulation with us.

That this Unit shall be divided into tenths and hundredths; that there shall be a coin of silver of the value of a Unit; one other of the same metal, of the value of one tenth of a Unit; one other of copper, of the value of the hundredth of a Unit.

That there shall be a coin of gold of the value of ten units, according to the report before directed, and the judgment of the Committee thereon.

That the alloy of the said coins of gold and silver shall be equal in weight to one eleventh part of the fine metal.

That there be proper devices for these coins.

That measures be proposed for preventing their diminution, and also their currency, and that of any others, when diminished.

That the several foreign coins be described and classed in the said Ordinance, the fineness of each class stated, and its value by weight estimated in Units and decimal parts of Units.

And that the said draught of an Ordinance be reported to Congress at their next meeting, for their consideration and determination.

Supplementary Explanations.

The preceding notes having been submitted to the consideration of the Financier, he favored me with his opinion and observations on them, which render necessary the following supplementary explanations.

I observed in the preceding notes, that the true proportion of value between gold and silver was a mercantile problem altogether, and that, perhaps, fifteen for one, might be found an eligible proportion. The Financier is so good as to inform me, that this would be higher than the market would justify. Confident of his better information on this subject, I recede from that idea.*

* In a Newspaper, which frequently gives good details in political economy, I find, under the Hamburg head, that the present market price of Gold and Silver is, in England, 15.5 for 1: in Russia, 15: in Holland, 14.75: in Savoy, 14.96: in Fiance, 14.42: in Spain, 14.3: in Germany, 14.155: the average of which is 14.615 or 14 1/2. I would still incline to give a little more than the market price for gold, because of its superior convenience in transportation.

He also informs me, that the several coins in circulation among us, have already been assayed with accuracy, and the result published in a work on that subject. The assay of Sir Isaac Newton had superseded, in my mind, the necessity of this operation as to the older coins, which were the subject of his examination. This later work, with equal reason, may be considered as saving the same trouble as to the latter coins.

So far, then, I accede to the opinions of the Financier. On the other hand, he seems to concur with me, in thinking his smallest fractional division too minute for a Unit, and, therefore, proposes to transfer that denomination to his largest silver coin, containing 1000 of the units first proposed, and worth about 4s. 2d. lawful, or 25/36 of a dollar. The only question then remaining between us is, whether the Dollar, or this coin, be best for the Unit. We both agree that the ease of adoption with the people, is the thing to be aimed at.

1. As to the Dollar, events have overtaken and superseded the question. It is no longer a doubt whether the people can adopt it with ease; they have adopted it, and will have to be turned out of that, into another track of calculation, if another Unit be assumed. They have now two Units, which they use with equal facility, viz. the Pound of their respective state, and the Dollar. The first of these is peculiar to each state; the second, happily, common to all. In each state, the people have an easy rule for converting the pound of their state into dollars, or dollars into pounds; and this is enough for them, without knowing how this may be done in every state of the Union. Such of them as live near enough the borders of their state to have dealings with their neighbors, learn also the rule of their neighbors: Thus, in Virginia and the Eastern States, where the dollar is 6s. or 3/10 of a pound, to turn pounds into dollars, they multiply by 10, and divide by 3. To turn dollars into pounds, they multiply by 3, and divide by 10. Those in Virginia who live near to Carolina, where the dollar is 8s. or 4/10 of a pound, learn the operation of that state, which is a multiplication by 4, and division by 10, _et e converso_. Those who live near Maryland, where the dollar is 7s. 6d. or 3/8 of a pound, multiply by 3, and divide by 8, _et e converso_. All these operations are easy, and have been found by experience, not too much for the arithmetic of the people, when they have occasion to convert their old Unit into dollars, or the reverse.

2. As to the Unit of the Financier; in the States where the dollar is 3/10 of a pound, this Unit will be 5/24. Its conversion into the pound then, will be by a multiplication by 5, and a division by 24. In the States where the dollar is 3/8 of a pound, this Unit will be 25/96 of a pound, and the operation must be to multiply by 25, and divide by 96, _et e converso_. Where the dollar is 4/10 of a pound, this Unit will be 5/18. The simplicity of the fraction, and of course the facility of conversion and reconversion, is therefore against this Unit, and in favor of the dollar, in every instance. The only advantage it has over the dollar, is, that it will in every case express our farthing without a remainder; whereas, though the dollar and its decimals will do this in many cases, it will not in all. But, even in these, by extending your notation one figure farther, to wit, to thousands, you approximate a perfect accuracy within less than the two thousandth part of a dollar; an atom in money which every one would neglect. Against this single inconvenience, the other advantages of the dollar are more than sufficient to preponderate. This Unit will present to the people a new coin, and whether they endeavor to estimate its value by comparing it with a Pound, or with a Dollar, the Units they now possess, they will find the fraction very compound, and of course less accommodated to their comprehension and habits than the dollar. Indeed the probability is, that they could never be led to compute in it generally.

The Financier supposes that the 1/100 of a dollar is not sufficiently small, where the poor are purchasers or vendors. If it is not, make a smaller coin. But I suspect that it is small enough. Let us examine facts, in countries where we are acquainted with them. In Virginia, where our towns are few, small, and of course their demand for necessaries very limited, we have never yet been able to introduce a copper coin at all. The smallest coin which any body will receive there, is the half-bit, or 1/20 of a dollar. In those states where the towns are larger and more populous, a more habitual barter for small wants, has called for a copper coin of 1/90 or 1/96 or 1/108 of a dollar. In England, where the towns are many and pouplous, and where ages of experience have matured the conveniences of intercourse, they have found that some wants may be supplied for a farthing, or 1/208 of a dollar, and they have accommodated a coin to this want. This business is evidently progressive. In Virginia we are far behind. In some other states, they are farther advanced, to wit, to the appreciation of 1/90, 1/96 or 1/108 of a dollar. To this most advanced state, then, I accommodated my smartest coin in the decimal arrangement, as a money of payment, corresponding with the money of account. I have no doubt the time will come when a smaller coin will be called for. When that comes, let it be made. It will probably be the half of the copper I propose, that is to say 5/1000 or.005 of a dollar, this being very nearly the farthing of England. But it will be time enough to make it, when the people shall be ready to receive it.

My proposition then, is, that our notation of money shall be decimal, descending _ad libitum_ of the person noting; that the Unit of this notation shall be a Dollar; that coins shall be accommodated to it from ten dollars to the hundredth of a dollar; and that, to set this on foot, the resolutions be adopted which were proposed in the notes, only substituting an inquiry into the fineness of the coins in lieu of an assay of them.

[NOTE G.]

I have sometimes asked myself, whether my country is the better for my having lived at all. I do not know that it is. I have been the instrument of doing the following things; but they would have been done by others; some of them, perhaps, a little better.

The Rivanna had never been used for navigation; scarcely an empty canoe had ever passed down it. Soon after I came of age I examined its obstructions, set on foot a subscription for removing them, got an act of Assembly passed, and the thing effected, so as to be used completely and fully for carrying down all our produce.

The Declaration of Independence.

I proposed the demolition of the Church establishment, and the freedom of religion. It could only be done by degrees; to wit, the act of 1776, c. 2. exempted dissenters from contributions to the Church, and left the Church clergy to be supported by voluntary contributions of their own sect; was continued from year to year, and made perpetual 1779, c. 36. I prepared the act for religious freedom in 1777, as part of the revisal, which was not reported to the Assembly till 1779, and that particular law not passed till 1785, and then by the efforts of Mr. Madison.

The act putting an end to entails.

The act prohibiting the importation of slaves.

The act concerning citizens, and establishing the natural right of man to expatriate himself at will.

The act changing the course of descents, and giving the inheritance to all the children, &c. equally, I drew as part of the revisal.

The act for apportioning crimes and punishments, part of the same work, I drew. When proposed to the Legislature by Mr. Madison, in 1785, it failed by a single vote. G. K. Taylor afterwards, in 1796, proposed the same subject; avoiding the adoption of any part of the diction of mine, the text of which had been studiously drawn in the technical terms of the law, so as to give no occasion for new questions by new expressions. When I drew mine, public labor was thought the best punishment to be substituted for death. But, while I was in France, I heard of a society in England who had successfully introduced solitary confinement, and saw the drawing of a prison at Lyons, in France, formed on the idea of solitary confinement. And, being applied to by the Governor of Virginia for the plan of a Capitol and Prison, I sent him the Lyons plan, accompanying it with a drawing on a smaller scale, better adapted to our use. This was in June, 1786. Mr. Taylor very judiciously adopted this idea, (which had now been acted on in Philadelphia, probably from the English model,) and substituted labor in confinement, to the public labor proposed by the Committee of revisal; which themselves would have done, had they been to act on the subject again. The public mind was ripe for this in 1796, when Mr. Taylor proposed it, and ripened chiefly by the experiment in Philadelphia; whereas, in 1785, when it had been proposed to our Assembly, they were not quite ripe for it.

In 1789 and 1790, I had a great number of olive plants, of the best kind, sent from Marseilles to Charleston, for South Carolina and Georgia. They were planted, and are flourishing; and, though not yet multiplied, they will be the germ of that cultivation in those States.

In 1790, I got a cask of heavy upland rice, from the river Denbigh, in Africa, about lat. 9° 30’ North, which I sent to Charleston, in hopes it might supersede the culture of the wet rice, which renders South Carolina and Georgia so pestilential through the summer. It was divided, and a part sent to Georgia. I know not whether it has been attended to in South Carolina; but it has spread in the upper parts of Georgia, so as to have become almost general, and is highly prized. Perhaps it may answer in Tennessee and Kentucky. The greatest service which can be rendered any country is, to add an useful plant to its culture; especially a bread grain; next in value to bread is oil.