(2) In many countries, especially those on the Continent, the
privileges of the great feudal lords included the right to keep a mint
and to issue coins. The central government restricted this right, as it
grew stronger, but in general the currency of medieval Europe was made
up of a vast variety of coins of standards even less reliable than that
of the king’s coinage. There was danger that a coin, even if it was of
good weight, could not be passed at its full value outside the locality
where it was minted.
(3) Even in countries like England, where feudal coinage was put down
and where debasement by the government was exceptional, counterfeits
were not rare, and the clipping of coin was very common.
These characteristics of medieval currency made the money-changer
a necessary figure in the commercial world; he was to be found
everywhere, even in the small towns, buying and selling the various
coins in circulation.
=135. Difficulty in making payments in distant places.=—While the
money-changer facilitated payments in any given place, he was not of
much assistance to a merchant desirous of making a payment in a distant
town or country. The merchant, it is true, could buy from him foreign
money with which to make the payment; but the transportation of the
actual coin was not only dangerous and expensive, but also subject to
legal restriction, and was to be avoided if possible. The merchant
would probably prefer to send instead of money some ware, which he
could sell to advantage at the destination, and then with the proceeds
make his payment. For example, when Michael Behaim of the Nuremberg
Company wanted to send 1,000 gulden from Breslau to Nuremberg, he found
it expedient to buy an amount of wax which he could sell in Nuremberg
for the required sum, and he shipped that instead of money.
=136. Introduction of the bill of exchange.=—It might not, however,
always be convenient for a man to meet his obligations in this way;
he might not have the commercial knowledge, or perhaps he might have
no good opportunity to ship a ware. Behaim, in the case cited, had in
fact resorted to the wax shipment only from necessity, after he found
it impossible to make his payment by the means of remittance now become
general, the _bill of exchange_.
Suppose that B. in Breslau owed the 1,000 gulden, to A. in Nuremberg,
for spice; and suppose that D. in Breslau was the creditor of another
Nuremberg merchant C, to the extent of 1,000 gulden, perhaps for furs.
It would be absurd for B to ship the money or to go out of his way
to ship wax to A, and for C to ship the same value to D, when the
payments could be made to cancel each other. Why should not B pay to
D in Breslau the 1,000 guldens due him, and tell C to pay the same
amount to A in Nuremberg? This could be accomplished by means of bills
of exchange; D could write out an order to C directing him to pay the
money, and sell it to B, who would thus have the means of paying his
debt in Nuremberg to A.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account