340 
lengthy, and for want of space I can only give short extracts from 
them. In contravention of Wilkinson’s statements, he writes in 
the Chronicie of December 5th :—‘‘ I must however be allowed 
to confess that these (Wilkinson’s) observations do not appear to 
be legitimately derived from the analysis, the result of which 
seems little likely to satisfy the many Tradesmen who assert 
‘that the proportion of Silver in the Bath Tokens is much 
inferior to that in the current Coin of the Kingdom. To decide 
on the truth or falsehood of the objection, Dr. Wilkinson should 
have measured the Tokens by the legal Coin of the realm, not by 
the paper value of Silver, which these intelligent tradesmen might 
with truth remark was measuring the yard by the cloth, instead of 
the cloth by the yard,’ and after proving to his own satisfaction 
that if cash payments were resumed at the Bank of England, and 
the Tokens suppressed, there would be a loss to the holders of 
the Bath Tokens of £38 in every nominal £100 worth, proceeds, 
‘the proportion of Silver in the Bath Tokens is not only much 
inferior to that in the legal Coin of the realm, but even to that in 
the Bank of England Tokens. So great, indeed, is the inferiority 
that a Bath four shilling contains scarcely a single pennyweight 
more silver than a three shilling Bank token!’ and as this 
inferiority ‘offers a direct premium for the conversion of Bank 
into Bath Tokens, and one still higher for the melting down of 
good half-crowns for the same purpose, an inundation of 
counterfeit Bath Tokens may naturally be apprehended,’ and 
concludes, ‘The perplexity and loss that may ultimately flow 
from the Tokens, it is easy to foresee, though not to calculate the 
extent of ! and while it is yet time, may perhaps be no less 
worthy the consideration of the avowed issuers, than of the 
receivers of the Bath Tokens. 
iam Ger cccs 
Francis ELLIs, 
(No. 12, Lansdown Crescent.”) 
