presently appear, at an increased reduction of real value. In 1805, the Bank of Ireland issued pieces of ten pence, and five pence, coined from dollar silver, professedly at the rate of sixty-five pence to the dollar. In 1811, the English country banks, and mercantile houses, put in circulation their own shillings and sixpences; and from the same year to 1815, the currency was further supplied by tokens of three shillings, and one and a half shillings, from the Bank of England.* The bank tokens, and doubtless the others also, were eventually redeemed at the prices stamped upon them.

"During all this period, the gold coinage was carried on at intervals, but in very reduced amount.†

"In 1816, peace having been re-established, and trade restored to its due course, the state of the coinage was made a subject of legislation, and, as already observed, important changes in both the gold and silver coin, were provided by act of Parliament.

"Dr. Kelly remarks, that—" In the history of the English mint, the coinage of 1816 will be memorable, not only on account of the important alteration then made in the monetary system, but also for the great accommodation afforded to the public. Thus, after a long period of disorder in the currency, the new silver coins were exchanged for the old, on very liberal terms; and although they amounted to several millions of pounds sterling, the exchange was effected simultaneously throughout the kingdom. The supplies too, from the mint, have been since continued, to all parts of the British dominions, with a degree of regularity and despatch, unknown at any former period.'‡

"The following are the legal rates of coinage, before and since 1816: "From a pound troy of gold, 22 carats or 9163 thousandths fine, 441 guineas were coined; and since 1816, 46% sovereigns; the various divisions or multiples being in proportion.

"From a pound troy of silver, 11 parts in 12 fine, or 925 thousandths, 62 shillings were coined; under the new system, 66 shillings ; other denominations in proportion. This advance is equal to 6 per cent, upon the old coinage. The new coins, being rated higher than the market price of silver, are effectually kept within the realm; occasional specimens only finding their way abroad.

"From the above rates, it is found that the full weight of the guinea is 129 grains, and the sovereign, 123 grains. But if the former weigh 128, or the latter 1223, they are still a legal tender, at their nominal rates. The full weight of the old crown, is 4644 grains, and of the new, 436 grains. The crown is equal to five shillings, or 60 pence.

"The remedy of the mint, or allowed deviation, is, for gold, 12 grains per lb. in weight, and carat in fineness; for silver, 1 dwt. per lb. in weight, andth part in fineness.

66

England should now be ranked among the silver producing countries,

*This system of tokens began with copper, in 1788, in default of lawful coinage. Ten years after, the private coinage of copper was arrested.

A new mint was erected in London, between the years 1806-10. In Ruding's Annals, iii. 523, it is stated that the cost of the premises was £7,062, cost of building and machinery, £261,978: total, £269,040.

Kelly's Cambist, Introd.

§ The fractions are not extended to an arithmetical nicety.

since the recent improvement in parting argentiferous lead ores. process of Pattinson, three ounces of silver in a ton of lead, will pay the expense of its extraction. This proportion is about one part in ten thousand. England and Scotland raise annually from 35,000 to 40,000 tons of lead, or about four-sevenths of the whole produce of Europe. In one year (1835) the argentiferous lead, containing about 8 ounces per ton, yielded 140,000 ounces of silver. In the same year, the amount of 36,000 ounces was raised in Cornwall, from silver ores; making the whole production 176,000 ounces, worth, if fine, about 227,000 dollars.*

* Ure's Dict. Arts, Mines, &c., London, 1839.

The gold coins are remarkably uniform in fineness, but below the legal standard, about one thousandth. In weight, as they are found in circulation, 1,000 sovereigns will vary from 5,111 to 5,124 dwts. The par value of the pound sterling is therefore $4 84 as near as may be; and our dollar is equal to 49 6 pence. Sterling gold is worth 94.6 cents per dwt.

The almost uniform result of 930, being five thousandths higher than lawful standard, is found by humid assay. The old method of assaying silver is said to be still in use in the British Mint; but the fineness seems to be falling to a humid standard.

We have not included the Tokens in the above table. They possess now no commercial importance, but for the sake of their historical interest, and for the gratification of those who retain them as specimens, a few particulars are annexed.

They are evidently coined from dollar silver, being of the fineness of 896 to 901 thousandths. The following varieties have been examined here:

pence,

and penny,

There are lower denominations of threepence, twopence, and 1 which are coined for royal distribution, and are called maundy money. Besides which there were numerous shillings issued in 1811 by the country banks, and by merchants of Bristol, York, and other places, weighing from 60 to 68 grains, and worth 144 to 164 cents.

ART. X.-PREFERRED CREDITORS.

OUGHT CERTAIN CREDITORS TO BE PREFERRED IN MAKING ASSIGNMENTS?

In making an assignment of one's effects, it is a common practice to classify claims, by preferring some to others. This is done, of course, in accordance with the laws of the state in which the assignment is made; otherwise, the instrument would be void. It seems to us that the morality of this act is seldom duly considered. We cannot escape the charge of immorality by the plea that civil law does not condemn the practice. Human law sometimes sanctions acts which are at variance with the moral law. We are disposed, however, to believe that the ground of this practice has not been sufficiently examined, and that it is through inadvertence, rather than improper design, that it has hitherto been followed. But,

waiving general remarks, we will examine the question, as briefly as possible, in its application to borrowed money and endorsements. Relative to assignments, the exclamation is sometimes made with evident astonishment: "Not provide for borrowed money and endorsements? Why, it is as bad as theft!" Whether they who utter such language, or they who adopt the sentiment, but convey it in a mild form, have given to the subject a proper consideration, we are rather disposed to doubt.

It may be urged, and with much apparent force, that a man should return borrowed money in preference to paying a debt: for borrowed money may not be regarded in the light of a debt; and the money should be returned for precisely the same reason that any other borrowed article ought to be—namely, because it was borrowed. The word borrowed means, "to take from another by request or consent, with a view to use the thing taken for a time, and return it." That is, the thing itself is to be returned. It is not a matter of trade, or of speculation. No debt, in the usual sense of the term, is hereby contracted. A moral obligation, indeed, rests upon the borrower to return the thing borrowed; and the lender also has a legal claim upon the borrower for the loan. But the claim is unlike that where a sale of merchandise is made. That is a matter of trade, with all its attendant risks; and, in a certain sense, the seller is a copartner with the buyer, and shares with him the profit or loss of the bargain. He puts certain property into common stock, and receives a dividend with other creditors. The buyer, indeed, agrees to pay for the goods, and the agree ment is absolute and unconditional upon its face; but it is nevertheless subject to many contingencies which frequently occur in the course of business, and which prevent the fulfilment of contracts. Not so with a loan of money. Money is not an article of merchandise; it is merely a representative of property, and it is a solecism in finance to regard it as otherwise. If you loan your carriage, it is expected that the carriage itself will be returned; nor can any contingency happen whereby a creditor of the borrower may acquire a claim to the carriage; and you would have precisely the same right to demand your money as you would your carriage, when found in the possession of another.

A proper distinction may be made between this case and that of a loan by a bank or any other corporation. In the latter case the bank ascertains what is the pecuniary credit of the borrower, and demands ample security for the loan, and is paid for it. In the former case regard is had not so much to the pecuniary credit of the borrower as to his character for integrity. The latter is a matter of business in the technical sense; the former a matter of honor, of personal favor. The one depends upon the contingencies of trade; the other mainly depends upon the common honesty of the borrower.

This seems to be the only plausible reason which can be offered in favor of the practice, so far as borrowed money is concerned; and we have endeavored to present it in as favorable a light as possible. It is also urged that when a man loans his name, he ordinarily does it as a mere matter of accommodation, for which he receives no pecuniary benefit; unlike the case of those who sell goods and obtain a profit upon them. He loans his name simply for convenience, and therefore ought to be preferred in the assignment.

Now we think that neither claim should be preferred on the ground of justice. The loan of money gives a credit to an individual which he

might not otherwise have; and it oftentimes delays an assignment which justice to creditors requires should have been made at the time of the loan. The loan, therefore, instead of being a benefit to the borrower, is an injury to him—and to his creditors especially, if the borrowed money be preferred. So of a man who endorses for another. He loans his name in order that the borrower may obtain credit. Without the name, the promiser would be without credit. The endorser is in fact the one who is credited, and not the promiser. He is not indeed the endorser in every case where the promiser gets credit; but his being so in a single instance helps the promiser to a credit which he could not otherwise enjoy. The fact of the endorsement will not be likely to be so generally known as the fact of the sale; and this latter fact may secure to the promiser a credit which will enable him to buy of others without an endorser. The only difference between the two cases cited is, that the fact of the loan of money is not so apparent as is that of the endorsement. But the truth unquestionably is, that both the lender and the endorser are, in a very important sense, copartners with the promiser in the business; and so far from being entitled to preference, it may with much reason be urged, are only entitled to what may remain after all the creditors are paid. A man may be a bankrupt to-day, and yet pay all his notes by the aid of borrowed money. And every day he continues in a state of bankruptcy renders it worse for his creditors when at length he fails. And does not the fact of his paying his notes promptly inspire confidence in his ability to pay, and give him a credit to which he is not justly entitled? And will it be said that those who furnish him with credit, whereby any are deceived as to his actual standing, can justly claim a preference over other creditors in the distribution of his effects?

MERCANTILE MISCELLANIES.

MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM ANSWERED.

We have received from several correspondents answers to the mathematical problem proposed in our July number, but from a press of other matter we have been obliged to defer their publication to the present time. The desire of the proposer of the problem was to asertain the speediest method of solution-for it is evident that sufficient data are given for an ordinary arithmetical solution. Of the various answers, those from R. B. S., and "Charleston," are the readiest and most satisfactory. T. J., C. C. C., and J. L., have also given correct answers, but the processes they have adopted are not so brief. The answer from G. B. B., though correct, is evidence merely that he has guessed shrewdly, but affords no rule for the solution of problems of a similar nature. As a compensation for our delay, and as an acknowledgment to our correspondents for their favors, we publish all the solutions we have received, and in the order we have named them above.

In reply to the remark of C. C. C., that "it is not stated whether the differences in the prices are differences between the values at the time of their consignment, or differences between their values as they were sold," we would remark that the problem, as stated, implies no depreciation from the market price; but that in order to solve a problem of