No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The devaluation of 1460 and the origins of the Irish pound
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
Extract
The Irish parliament which met at Drogheda in 1460 is best known for its legislative declaration of its own sovereignty Although this was subsequently abrogated by Poynings’ law, the 1460 parliament effected one lasting change, to which little attention has been given: it established a separate Irish currency for the first time and in so doing created an institution which with varying visibility and value was to last until 1826 — the Irish pound.
Before 1460 an Irish coinage existed. This was, however, merely a local minting to a common bullion standard which applied in England and Ireland since the first Irish minting under King John at the very beginning of the thirteenth century. Considerable historical attention of a numismatic bent has been paid to the coinages issued under the Normans. It has been concentrated in the main on the more or less mechanical questions of where, how many and by whom coins were issued. Wider analysis has been almost entirely political or related to the problems of the exchequer — mintings in place and in quantity being indicators of Norman influence and of the cost of such administration as existed in medieval Ireland.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1986
References
l A silver penny was discovered in 1927 and was ascribed by its finder to a Limerick minting under one of the Southern Uí Néill during the period 1065-95; the identification of this coin is however rather uncertain ( O'Sullivan, William, ‘The earliest Irish coinage’ in R.S.A.I. Jn., 89 (1949), pp 190–224).Google Scholar
2 The principal exponent of this approach was Dolley, Michael See his Medieval Anglo-Irish coins (London, 1972).Google Scholar
3 E.g. Dolley, Michael, ‘Anglo-Irish monetary policies, 1172–1637’ in Beckett, J. C. (ed.), Historical Studies 7 (London, 1969), pp 45–64 Google Scholar; Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., ‘Irish revenue, 1278–1384’ in R.I.A. Proc, 62 (1961–2), sect. C, pp 87–100.Google Scholar
4 Ellis, S. G., ‘The struggle for control of the Irish mint, 1460-C.1506’ in R.I.A. Proc, 78 (1978), sect. C, pp 17–36.Google Scholar
5 Dolley ascribes this to political motives — the intention being that the subordinate lordship of Ireland should produce smaller value coins ( Dolley, , Medieval Anglo-Irish coins, pp 1–2)Google Scholar. An alternative explanation is that it was common practice to produce ha'pennies or farthings by dividing pennies in 2 or 4. It would make sense in a new minting to produce ha'pennies ab initio, especially if, in a poorer economy, the demand for such coins was relatively higher.
6 These practices were used to reduce the metal content of the coinage. Clipping, as it implies, involved shaving metal from the edge of a coin, a practice which was not suppressed until milled edges were introduced in the eighteenth century Sweating involved severe shaking of coins in a bag to produce a precious metal dust through friction.
7 38 Henry VI, c. 2 (Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp 661–7).
8 This was the effect of the clause in the act that provided that none might refuse to accept the new coinage at its face value.
9 Ellis, , ‘Struggle for control of the Irish mint’, p. 19.Google Scholar
10 The reader who wishes to establish the precise conditions depending on which relative prices will lead to a restoration of balance of payments equilibrium is referred to the section on the Marshall-Lerner conditions in any standard international trade textbook.
11 Miller, Edward , ‘The economic policies of governments: England and France’ in Postan, M. M., Rich, and Miller, Edward (eds), The Cambridge economic history of Europe, 3 (Cambridge, 1963), p. 333.Google Scholar
12 5 Edw IV, c. 9 (Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp 295–9).
13 7 & 8 Edw. IV, c. 5 (ibid., pp 439–43).
14 10 Edw IV, c. 5 (ibid., pp 657–61).
15 10 Edw IV, c. 4 (ibid., pp 651–7).
16 Dolley, , Medieval Anglo-Irish coins, p. 25.Google Scholar
17 Ellis, , ‘Struggle for control of the Irish mint’, pp 22–3.Google Scholar
18 Cf. Feaveryear, A. E., The pound sterling: a history of English money (Oxford, 1931), pp 38–9.Google Scholar
19 Ibid., Miller, , ‘The economic policies of governments’, pp 335–40.Google Scholar
20 Between April and December 1601 the cost of providing for the Elizabethan army in Ireland was just under £168,000 in nominal terms (i.e. in terms of the debased Irish currency). The total cost to the English exchequer of meeting this requirement was under £95,000 in bullion. Cf. memorandum on the benefits of the new money (Cal. S.P Ire., 1601–3, pp 247–50). That this bullion saving was one of the objectives of the debasement is clear (cf. memorandum in favour of debasing, ibid., pp 225–34).
2l Cf. Dolley, Michael, Gallagher, Colm and Seaby, W A., ‘The sixteenth-century coin-hoard from Moig South, Askeaton, Co. Limerick’ in British Numismatic Journal, 37 (1968), pp 85–92 Google Scholar; Dolley, Michael ‘An early sixteenth-century coin-hoard from the eastern slopes of Mount Brandon’ in N. Munster Antiq. Jn., 10 (1967), pp 223–5.Google Scholar
22 The debasement of 1601 collapsed when traders and others effectively refused to accept the new coinage. In the end, to secure its acceptance by her own officers in Ireland, Elizabeth had to agree to continue to redeem it in sterling after she had reneged on a promise to redeem it in sterling for traders wishing to remit balances to England. (Lord deputy and Irish privy council to English privy council, 26 Jan. 1603, Cal. S.P Ire., 1601–3, pp 559–61; Lord deputy and others to Cecil, 12 Mar 1603, ibid., p. 581; Memorandum from lord deputy and Irish privy council to English privy council, 22 June 1601, Cal. Carew MSS, 1601–3, pp 87–92; Mayor and sheriffs of Dublin to Cecil, 7 Jan. 1603, Cal. S.P Ire., 1601–3, p. 551, Royal proclamation, 24 Jan. 1603, Cal. Carew MSS, 1601–3, pp 409–14 )
23 The currency reforms of James I, undertaken between 1603 and 1607, were rendered inoperative by the financial confusion which overwhelmed the country as a result of the wars of the 1640s. Details of these reforms may be found in Pawlisch, Hans, Sir John Davies and the conquest of Ireland: a study in legal imperialism (Cambridge, 1985), pp 152–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 In the middle and later seventeenth century the currency used for trading purposes was no longer an Irish issue but consisted of a mixed coinage of British and Continental origin. Bills of exchange, however, drawn on Dublin were traded at a discount in the London market, which fluctuated seasonally as well as showing longer term trends. The ‘par’ of exchange was about 100 107, which put Dublin bills at a discount far in excess of bullion transport costs. Arbitrage would have eliminated this excess margin if coinage in Ireland had been de facto of equal value to coinage in England in bullion terms. We are left, therefore, to conclude that the metal content of the Irish coinage was below that in general obtaining in England. Cf. Simon, James, An essay towards an historical account of Irish coins (Dublin, 1749)Google Scholar; Cullen, L. M., An economic history of Ireland since 1660 (London, 1972)Google Scholar, chs 1 and 2, passim.
25 After suspension of gold payments in 1797, the Irish pound, a paper currency based on the note issue of the Bank of Ireland, became both a medium of exchange and a unit of account. Restoration of gold payments after the defeat of Napoleon restored the post-1689 position.