Civil War Irish Money of Necessity

[kal 22]

Both these examples were issued in Dublin by order of the Lord Justices during the Irish Rebellion.  The rare shilling of January 1642 is from the first issue and normally is referred to as "Inchiquin money".  Its weight is expressed in Arabic numerals, penny weights and grains.  

The halfcrown known as "Ormond money" is from a much larger issue of July 1643, and shows the value in Roman numerals.  This coinage was surprisingly declared legal tender in England and Wales and sometimes examples turn up in Civil War hoards.

 

[Garrett 76]

Interesting coins, but silver is silver so is it that surprising ?

[kal 22]

Hi Garrett,

I agree silver is silver, but I believe siege coins/money of necessity issued under the authority of local governors were not intended to circulate outside the confines of the strongholds or the town under siege.  Both Carlisle and Pontefract issues were intentionally produced underweight in order to stretch out a limited supply of plate.  Only in Newark was the weight consistently maintained.  The Irish Ormond issue was an exception.  King Charles I directed Ormond to negotiate a truce with the Confederate Catholic Assembly in order to free up troops that then could be deployed in England and North Wales.  To facilitate this, he, by Royal Proclamation directed in May 1642 that the' loyal subjects' in Dublin bring in their plate to be coined to the same standards of weight and purity "as are moneys now current in England".  The King also directed that the Royal Cypher C.R. beneath the crown be displayed the observe and the nominal value on the reverse.

 

[Rob 3,152]

Only up to a point as we aren't quite talking from the same angle here, are we? Carlisle was undeniably under siege and not in a position to expect relief, so the issue was only ever likely to be used internally. 

Newark was not out on so much of a limb, had a history of being under siege, even though it had not struck coin on previous occasions and from the Parlimentarian point of view was a continuing thorn in the side. It is fair to say that it would not have surrendered in May 1646 had it not been instructed to by Charles. Therefore, the use of fine silver of the correct weight is not surprising given its use elsewhere for Royalist issues. Charles was quite anxious that standards should be maintained, and presumably would have given instructions to that effect when he passed though in the summer of 1645 following the defeat at Naseby. (Is anybody aware of a date for when striking commenced?)

Pontefract was in a far more precarious position given it was the Second Civil War, where the rebels were limited in numbers and their position defined clearly as traitors following the insurrection. This was never the position taken by either side regarding other English soldiers (Irish were different)

Although Ormonde was instructed to negotiate a truce, this was effectively from a position of equality with the other side. Although various towns and cities came under attack and were essentially under siege, both sides had the upper hand on occasion, so his position was not comparable to the above three places. Use of touched silver meant that standards were maintained, even across the Irish Sea, thus guaranteeing the men would be paid in good money, and their purchased loyalty ensured.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Rob

[kal 22]

It is my understanding that the King left Newark on 3 Nov, 1645, a few weeks prior to the arrival of the main Scottish and Parliamentary armies on 26 Nov.  Then a close siege of the city began and there was little likelihood of relief from then onwards.  The siege pieces were most likely produced between this time and May 6, 1646, when Lord Belasyse was ordered to surrender.  

The coins themselves for the most part were directly cut from the available silver plate.  The halfcrown denomination requiring a thick flan were produced from prepared silver sheets in turn sourced from melting down stems, handles, etc.  REF.  H.R. Jessop S.N.C. March 1976:  "Flans for Newark Siege Coins".  The Carlisle and Pontifract pieces were likewise made from melted down silver plate.  In the case of Carlisle, 86 oz or 7.4% was lost in the melting and refining process.  

As for the Ormond series, I agree that they were not produced under siege conditions; that is why I used the term "Money of Necessity" in reference to them.

[Rob 3,152]

It still doesn't tell us when they started producing coins unfortunately. 1646 is unquestionably commoner than 1645, but production has to be limited to a six week period with this date, so I wonder how late in the year they started using plate. If striking was pro-rata to time, then production couldn't have started before February, unless levies were collected in plate only at some point. One would assume that levies would have been collected mainly in coin until it ran out and plate only converted out of necessity, but confirmation of that would rely on council records from the time.

[kal 22]

With regard to the halfcrown denomination, I agree with your comment - “1646 is unquestionably commoner than 1645”.  When it comes to the lesser values, I believe it’s questionable.  With the benefit of the research by Edward Besly who had access to a large group of this series, for his civil war metrology survey and Mr. Jessop previously mentioned who also used the BM collection and other sources including sales catalogues, private collections, etc., the combined results for the numbers of shilling/ninepence for the dates 1645 is 160 items versus 126 for 1646.  I have omitted the sixpence because as  you know they are only known for 1646.  Because of duplication, I am aware these observations are in no way scientific, but they should be considered.  

 

Concerning levies or donations of plate, the main source for this would have been the nobility (of which there were many), the clergy, aldermen and even a regal service, possibly from Charles himself.

[Rob 3,152]

I agree regarding the lack of scientific application. Personally, I feel the 1645s are likely to be over-represented due to the almost automatic illustration of any flat crown 1645 despite there only being a couple dozen or so. I did start to make a list of identifiable Newark siege pieces, but lost the will to live a few years ago. Whatever the distribution, there is no excessively large skew suggesting that coining took place continuously for months prior to the New Year, nor that coining only took place in (literally) a few days leading up to New Year. The actual periods when coins could have been struck are flexible to a point, as money of necessity only it would be made as a last resort after any available coin had been used. I think we can be confident that dated coins were struck in the appropriate year.

If there had to be a case made for an issue considerably earlier, that would have to be the flat crown pieces, but their relative rarity suggests a very short striking period. The two spellings of NEWARK(E) on the regular shillings might be indicative that shillings and ninepences with the terminal E were concurrent with the flat crown shillings. If so, one might be inclined to consider these were struck at a completely different time to those without the E. That would favour an early striking such as the arrival of Charles with a significant number of troops, thus requiring plate due to the immediate supplies of coin being insufficient. But the quid pro quo for any early output is a reduction in the length of time for late strikings, i.e.that would negate any lengthy striking period in Feb/March 1645 because I think we can reasonably assume similar survival rates for both 1645 and 1646, plus the spelling varieties.

The absence of many halfcrowns dated 1645 poses a bit of a conundrum. As the basic pay for a cavalryman, you would have expected a fairly even distribution across the dates. Was there a large supply of halfcrowns, yet no shillings? What also seems unlikely is that there would be a large output of shillings and ninepences relative to halfcrowns when the majority of Royalist troops by this time were mounted cavalry. Charles' infantry was decimated at Naseby, so you would have expected the halfcrown/shilling ratio to increasingly favour the former, if it did in fact change. If the spelling of Newark has any bearing, then it might be that coins without the E represent the striking period leading up to the surrender, in which case, the ratio of 1645 to 1646 Newark coins as a whole gives us the approximate split for the period leading up to and after the New Year.

The levies would have fallen on the inhabitants once the town was under siege with any Royalists taking refuge likely to be assessed in name only unless they were fortuitously ably to carry their wealth with them. I don't know if records exist for Newark covering the siege period, but those surviving at Chester record fortnightly assessments of £200 during the autumn months. However, there is no confirmation that these sums were actually collected in full. There is a record of a shortfall on one occasion. Again, at York, Slingsby records that there was no money or plate surviving towards the end. 

So much we don't know that I wish we did.

[kal 22]

An interesting and very informative overview.  Your final remark reminds me of the regret voiced by Martin Folkes concerning the lack of records of this coinage in his time.  He wrote:  “It were to be wished that some account of it had been published whilst the memory of the transactions was yet fresh…..As it is only from very imperfect tradition that any knowledge has been handed down to us. ….Concerning all this money I should be very glad to be better informed.”

 

The lack of data doesn’t seem to hinder the compilers of the GB 200 Coin Index - “Tracking performance of the top 200 English coins”.  With regards to the “Scarborough Broken Castle” Group, (the only siege issue covered).  Of the dozen denominations listed, six are believed unique and mostly reside in museums, of four others only two examples each are thought extant, which leave half a dozen sixpences and a few shilling.  I thought I would add this photograph of a Newark halfcrown 1646.