Counterfeiting In 1800s London

Since the beginning of human history, and the genesis of money, which are quite nearly the same thing, people have been counterfeiting money.  From the half silver and gold plated coins of the olden days, to the sleek and sophisticated false bills of today, man has tried to take from his fellow man by giving him fake cash, with varying degrees of success.  Nevertheless, until quite recently, counterfeiting has been relatively easy to accomplish.  This, as one can imagine, was quite a difficulty for governments and such, as it can cause extreme inflation, putting more money on the market.  It was also effectively a form of thievery, because fake coins became quite utterly worthless when exposed.  England, up until somewhat recently as well, has dealt with this in a rather sophisticated manner.  Immediate death.  Somewhat harsh, no doubt, but also perhaps necessary to compensate for the fact that it was so easy to do back in the day.  They didn’t have any of the modern systems we use today such as watermarks, holograms, strips, and EURion (a symbol which most commercial printers cannot physically print).  Anyway, in this blog post I will show three different articles, each from The London Times, and try to give a glimpse into how fake cash worked back in the day.

The first article is a report of a trial in 1962, on November the 8^th, of a Mr. James Griffith, 41, of 2, Brown’s Buildings, Winson Street, Birmingham, and 5 accomplices.  The London Police apprehended Griffith and his friends for the robbery of a bank, and the subsequent forgery of bank notes from four stolen presses.  Griffith was confronted in a house, (surrendering immediately) alongside four printers, one as the “mother printer” used as a template, another for the parent watermark, the third and fourth for date and signature.  Back then, that, and the proper paper for printing on, was all it took to authentically forge pounds and other currency.  The only way they managed to trace the criminals was through the máterial they stole from the printing mills (which were rather badly guarded as well), because the bills that they had produced were rather market accurate.

The Second Article is a deep, heartfelt, and somewhat long-winded letter to the editor from a man named Anti-Draco,  (who, evidently, was some sort of dragon slayer), on January the 7^th, 1829, concerning the capital punishment of England, for forgery, and counterfeit.  He feels that the age-old method of the death penalty was perhaps somewhat harsh, and should possibly be reconsidered.  He references France, and the United States, both “commercial countries” in their own right, who do not consider counterfeit as a capital punishment, whereas Britain puts it all the way up there with Rape, Murder, and Theft.  He also states his worry that it gives far too much power to The Bank Of England, who can accuse people of such crimes to get them convicted, and executed.  He compares the two values of money, and human life, and argues that England should place life higher.  His desire was not fulfilled until much later, but his letter was printed in the newspaper nonetheless, an opinion no doubt others shared.

The third article is from February 2^nd, 1882’s issue of The London Times, another court case, which evidently were printed in the papers in large detail quite often, of four men, who were captured in a police raid with their metaphorical pants down, minting fake coins.  Once again, this shows how common and easy it was to make fake money, and how much the desperate and intelligent both did it quite often.  All the resources the men needed were a few authentic coins, and minters, both easily obtained.  At that time, it was still considered a crime against the state, though at the time of the printing, it was unsure what the men’s sentence would be.

Counterfeiting is a serious problem today, but it was far worse in 1800s London.  Common, easy, and relatively cheap for the aspiring criminal, the Government of England dealt with it harshly to combat it.  They, and the forgers, had varying success.