# Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money is published against debasement Date: 1695 ## The fact In late 1695 Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money appeared as [Locke](/people/john-locke)’s public answer to William Lowndes. The dated pamphlet is the coinage instrument, not the 1696 Board of Trade office and not a generic ‘joins the debate’ heading without this title. John Locke’s documented role is: He published a 1695 coinage pamphlet against Lowndes’s proposal to raise the denomination of silver. Treasury debate was shared; the pamphlet is his. Do not twin this with the 1696 Board office. Do not twin it with the existing 1696 recoinage-debate heading; 1695 is the pamphlet. Later editors, printers, and excavators remain named where they appear. John Locke's documented role is: He published a 1695 coinage pamphlet against Lowndes’s proposal to raise the denomination of silver. Treasury debate was shared; the pamphlet is his. ## Context Clipped silver, a Treasury proposal to raise the denomination, and Newton’s later Mint work already structured the 1690s money file. Locke argued for recoinage at the old standard. Short-term hardship from calling light coin is the worsening fiscal path; a later gold-standard myth is not this pamphlet. Named others on the file: William Lowndes as target, Treasury readers, and later Newton at the Mint share the neighbouring file without becoming this title. The public setting is the file around 1695-12-01. Unnamed clerks, soldiers, printers, or later editors may appear without becoming this instrument. Contribution type is direct. The instrument stays Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money is published against debasement. The setting of Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money is published against debasement is the public file around 1695-12-01. Shared offices, unnamed crews, printers, or later editors may appear without becoming this instrument. Contribution type is direct. Driver [fiscal-policy-sustainability](/drivers/fiscal-policy-sustainability) is attached because the significance names a mechanism from this act, not because a standing list needed coverage. Later competitions, monuments, translations, UNESCO listings, museums, and adaptations are not converted into extra lifetime acts. ## Evidence and sources Gutenberg’s later English of the money pamphlets and Britannica independently date Locke’s 1695 Further Considerations. Official: Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money — public English (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7371; Project Gutenberg). Independent: Britannica — John Locke, recoinage debate (https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Locke; Encyclopaedia Britannica). The two URLs are different pages. Where the carrier is a later edition or a received narrative, that limit is stated rather than upgraded to an autograph. Official carrier: Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money — public English (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7371; Project Gutenberg). Independent carrier: Britannica — John Locke, recoinage debate (https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Locke; Encyclopaedia Britannica). Official or archival record: Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money — public English (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7371; Project Gutenberg). ## Significance Worsening fiscal-sustainability path: a hard-money recoinage argument in a clipped-coin crisis. Direct on the pamphlet. Welfare reading worsening. The attached mechanism is A dated hard-money pamphlet backed calling coin at full weight during a clipped-silver crisis, a shock path for holders of light coin. Lag to any modern indicator is not treated as zero. This path is attached because the mechanism is named from this act, not because a driver list needed coverage. The welfare reading on this path is worsening. Confidence is stated on the impact path, not hidden in adjectives. Do not twin this with the 1696 Board office. Do not twin it with the existing 1696 recoinage-debate heading; 1695 is the pamphlet. Mixed effects of Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money is published against debasement are separate paths. ## What is established and what is not Established: a 1695 Further Considerations pamphlet. Not established: that Locke uniquely designed the Recoinage Act, or unique hardship coefficients. Established: a sourced public record of Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money is published against debasement under 1695-12-01. Established: a sourced public record of Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money is published against debasement under 1695-12-01. Shared responsibility is part of Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money is published against debasement. Naming John Locke does not delete co-authors, institutions, or later transmitters. The lag from 1695-12-01 to any measured indicator is not treated as zero. Alternative explanations — weather, other armies, later statutes, or independent cultural change — remain live where the sources do not close them. The contribution type is direct. The attached driver is fiscal-policy-sustainability. The welfare reading used in this dossier is worsening. That reading is an impact-path choice, not a property stored on the Fact itself. If a number is not in the two records named above, it is not supplied here. ## People - John Locke: https://factrail.ai/people/john-locke ## Drivers - Fiscal-Policy Sustainability: https://factrail.ai/drivers/fiscal-policy-sustainability ## Sources - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7371 - https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Locke ## Methodology https://factrail.ai/methodology Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/jlk-further-considerations-1695