Crime in History: a Historical Investigation-Coining
Assignment 1: Crime in History: A Historical Investigation
Gaskill (2000, p. 127) states that ‘historians of crime have tended to see coining in two ways: first, as an offence which the authorities treated with the utmost seriousness; secondly, as something which the population at large regarded as no crime at all.’ This was the opinion of coining in the late 18th Century and throughout much of the 19th Century.
Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker (consulted 2010) defines coining offences as ‘a number of offences in which coin or paper money (the King's currency) was counterfeited or interfered with, or in which individuals used or possessed forged or diminished currency’. Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker goes further to state that coining offences can include: ‘coining (counterfeiting coins)’, ‘possessing moulds for the manufacture of coins’, ‘manufacturing counterfeit paper money, banknotes or bills of exchange’ and ‘possessing counterfeit money or putting it in into circulation ("uttering")’. Furthermore, ‘The statute farther enacts, that to . . . colour, gild, or case over any coin resembling the current coin . . . shall be construed high treason.’ (Jacob, 1811, p.495).
Coining and forgery became extremely common towards the end of 19th Century: ‘Whereas forgery and coining comprised less than 5% of all trials during the eighteenth century, by 1850 this figure had risen to over 20%, and remained between 10% and 20% of court business until the early twentieth century.’ (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, consulted 2010). Furthermore, coining tended to be a neighbourhood-based crime; and ‘Neighbourhoods existed where households sustained by coining were well known to each other’ (Gaskill, 2000, p. 139).
Coin clipping was the act of shaving or trimming coins (which in the 19th Century were usually made from gold or silver and were easily trimmed) to the point where the coin was still recognisable, but weighed significantly less. When the coiner had collected enough
Gaskill (2000, p. 127) states that ‘historians of crime have tended to see coining in two ways: first, as an offence which the authorities treated with the utmost seriousness; secondly, as something which the population at large regarded as no crime at all.’ This was the opinion of coining in the late 18th Century and throughout much of the 19th Century.
Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker (consulted 2010) defines coining offences as ‘a number of offences in which coin or paper money (the King's currency) was counterfeited or interfered with, or in which individuals used or possessed forged or diminished currency’. Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker goes further to state that coining offences can include: ‘coining (counterfeiting coins)’, ‘possessing moulds for the manufacture of coins’, ‘manufacturing counterfeit paper money, banknotes or bills of exchange’ and ‘possessing counterfeit money or putting it in into circulation ("uttering")’. Furthermore, ‘The statute farther enacts, that to . . . colour, gild, or case over any coin resembling the current coin . . . shall be construed high treason.’ (Jacob, 1811, p.495).
Coining and forgery became extremely common towards the end of 19th Century: ‘Whereas forgery and coining comprised less than 5% of all trials during the eighteenth century, by 1850 this figure had risen to over 20%, and remained between 10% and 20% of court business until the early twentieth century.’ (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, consulted 2010). Furthermore, coining tended to be a neighbourhood-based crime; and ‘Neighbourhoods existed where households sustained by coining were well known to each other’ (Gaskill, 2000, p. 139).
Coin clipping was the act of shaving or trimming coins (which in the 19th Century were usually made from gold or silver and were easily trimmed) to the point where the coin was still recognisable, but weighed significantly less. When the coiner had collected enough