relating to the legal tender would not admit
of any other interpretation of such laws and
contracts than this, — that these rates, or
taxes, in pence or shillings, signified so many
fractions of the unit (sovereign) in gold.

For the purpose of reckoning and keeping
accounts, we ought to have as few sorts of money
as possible; but, for payment of small debts,
there should be no lack of various coins.
According to the plan of the Parliamentary
Committee, we should have two moneys of
account, as other countries have; with this
difference, however, that most of these have
only hundredths, that is, two places after the
unit, or integer, whilst we should have
thousandths, that is, three places after the pounds.
This is as it should be, and arises from the
simple fact that France, for example, has only
hundredths, because their integer, the franc,
is only of the value of about ten pence
sterling; and, as we find the pound more
convenient in accounts, than the franc or the
shilling, hundredths would not complete our
system, as the hundredth of a pound is two
pence three-farthings, whilst the thousandth
part of a pound is as near as possible our
present farthing. In whole numbers,
twenty-four farthings are equal to twenty-five
thousandths. Thus our accounts in decimals
will have the advantage over our present
ones in point of exactness, as halfpence and
farthings will in no case be lost.

The Committee's plan is, to adopt the
existing pound as basis, with three decimal
places; that is, dividing it into a thousand
parts, millesimals, or, by abbreviation, mils.
The Commercial Traveller suggests that the
term pound be abandoned, as obsolete and
absurd. Others advise that "sovereign"
should be abolished and "pound" retained;
but what's in a name? The coined gold
sovereign, and the proposed money of account of
a thousand mils being identically one and the
same, common sense, as well as our
convenience, urge that both moneys should have
but one name.

A sum in sovereigns and mils requires
after the whole numbers the decimal point,
comma, or some other distinctive mark. The
point as well as the comma are objectionable;
in their stead are proposed the mark ,, or as
the Portuguese have it, ? ?, viz., two strokes
prolonged above and below the line. This
mark is undoubtedly the most convenient in
practice; it serves also very well if placed
before mils where these do not amount to
a thousand, that is, a full sovereign. We
might then dispense with putting a mark for
mils, and also with placing a cipher to the
left of the point, to signify the absence of
sovereigns. Thus, what is now printed, for
example, S.3·825m., S.0·037m., we should in
future express by 3 ? ? 825, and   ? ? 037, which is
as brief as it is perspicuous.

It is very desirable that people should be
impressed with the rule in decimals, that
when we mean to express thousandths, which
we shall do whenever we speak or write of
mils as thousandths of a sovereign, the
obviating of mistakes requires that three places
should ALWAYS be expressed, especially where
only units or tens of mils occur, in which
case we place the cipher after the mark.
Thus, writing   ? ? 037, or   ? ? 007, we shall make it
appear for certain that the tenth of a
sovereign, or the tenth and the hundredth in
the second example are wanting.

To write and cast sums in merchants'
books, the best plan the Commercial
Traveller can suggest is, to leave the columns
exactly as they are usually ruled at present.
The sovereigns will continue to be
distinguished as they now are. The tenth of a
sovereign, or florin, is, as a money of
account, the decimal multiple of (ten times) a
cent, and, together with the unit of the cent,
would occupy the column which now serves
for the unit and ten of the shilling. The
unit of a mil would then alone appear in the
third column, which is now that of the pence.
We should, therefore, write in our books as
follows:
           |    Sov.     |     C.    |      M.    |
           |    103      |      23    |        5   |
which would be read, One hundred sovereigns,
twenty-three cents, and five mils. In coin, it
would be 100 sovereigns, 2 florins, 3 cents,
and 5 mils.

And now, with regard to the various coins
by means of which a decimal system is to be
practically carried out. The evidence given
by some gentlemen, before the Committee,
was to the effect, that the smaller the
number of coins with which it is practicable
to effect purchases, the better. This is
undoubtedly beautiful theory; but in practice
it would be dangerous to disregard too
strictly the convenience of the public. When
we come to treat of the moneys of coinage,
we ought to consider that the public have a
right to ask for accommodation. All
decimally-reckoning countries have found it
necessary to afford facilities for small change
in purchases, by coining a variety of
subdivisions.

Upon these grounds it will be quite safe to
retain — at least for a time — the half-florin
(shilling). The quarter-florin (sixpence)
would do very well, discarding only the term
sixpence; but, unfortunately, the sixpence
stamped on its face renders the coin highly
objectionable, when it becomes of the utmost
importance, for the lower classes especially,
to efface old recollections, as Sir J. Herschell
said, of everything that reminds them of
pence. The sixpence ought, therefore, to be
condemned as absolutely as the three and
fourpenny bits, and the copper pennies.
Besides, the sixpence, taken as the fourth part
of the florin, will become entirely superfluous
by the introduction of the double cent, the
fifth of the florin. In the same manner
the half-crown, rendered supernumerary by