coin for the future. It is true indeed, that a gentleman often sends to
my shop for a pattern of stuff, I cut it fairly off, and if he likes it,
he comes or sends and compares the pattern with the whole piece, and
probably we come to a bargain. But if I were to buy an hundred sheep,
and the grazier should bring me one single wether fat and well fleeced
by way of pattern, and expect the same price round for the whole
hundred, without suffering me to see them before he was paid, or giving
me good security to restore my money for those that were lean or shorn
or scabby, I would be none of his customer. I have heard of a man who
had a mind to sell his house, and therefore carried a piece of brick in
his pocket, which he shewed as a pattern to encourage purchasers: And
this is directly the case in point with Mr. Wood's assay.[8]

[Footnote 8: Monck Mason remarks on this assay that "the assay-masters
do not report that Mr. Wood's coinage was superior to that of former
kings, but only to those specimens of such coinages as were exhibited by
Mr. Wood, which, it is admitted were much worn. Whether the money coined
in the preceding reign was good or bad is in fact nothing to the
purpose." "'What argument,'" quotes Monck Mason from the tract issued in
1724 entitled, "A Defence of the Conduct of the People of Ireland, in
their unanimous refusal of Mr. Wood's Copper Money," "'can be drawn from
the badness of our former coinages but this, that because we have
formerly been cheated by our coiners, we ought to suffer Mr. Wood to
cheat us over again? Whereas, one reason for our so vigorously opposing
Mr. Wood's coinage, is, because we have always been imposed upon in our
copper money, and we find he is treading exactly in the steps of his
predecessors, and thinks he has a right to cheat us because he can shew
a precedent for it.' In truth, there was a vast number of counterfeits
of those coins, which had been imported, chiefly from Scotland, as
appears from a proclamation prohibiting the Importation of them in 1697"