46 DORSET SEVENTEENTH CENTURY TOKENS. 



inouth, and Wimborne. These town-farthings vary somewhat in 

 size, but are generally as large as the half-pennies of private 

 traders. There is, however, in the Dorset County Museum a 

 variety of the Dorchester town-piece of the size of an ordinary 

 farthing token, only much thicker. It is the only one I have 

 ever met with, and I should imagine it is probably unique. 

 There were several pairs of dies used in striking the Dorchester 

 town-pieces, but with this exception, they were all about the usual 

 size. The town-pieces all bear the same date, 1669, with the 

 exception of Poole, which is dated 1667, thus showing that the 

 corporations did not follow the example of the private issuers for 

 many years. To Poole, therefore, belongs the honour of being by 

 two years the first of the corporate towns in providing for the 

 needs of the town in the way of small and " necessary change." 

 That such a course was not decided upon without grave consideration 

 may be gathered from the entries in the minutes contained in the 

 public records of the various corporations, which authorised the 

 issue and the quantity of these town-farthings. These orders, so 

 far as they are known to me, I will now proceed to give, for as the 

 town-pieces are of greater interest than, and very few in com- 

 parison with, the issues of private persons, I will deal with them 

 each in turn, taking them in alphabetical order, beginning with 

 Blandford. 



To Blandford must be accorded the distinction 



BLANDFORD. of having issued corporation farthings in 1623, if 

 we may judge from an entry in Mrs. Farquharson's 

 MS. memoranda, mentioned in Hutchins (i., 221.) 



" 1623. This year the corporation accounted for farthings 

 belonging to this town." 



If the date is correctly given and, coming between an entry 

 in 1617 and another in 1625, there seems no reason to doubt it 

 this entry must refer to the farthings issued under the patent 

 granted by King James I. to John Stanhope, Baron Harington, 

 which I have before alluded to. But again in 1673 the following 

 entry appears : 



