1894 it runs, "Anno regni lviii." Which coin bears the correct legend?' To this query I thought it best to send an immediate reply, which was as follows, 'Your correspondent, although he is mistaken in thinking there are errors in the dates of the recent crown pieces, has raised an interesting point in chronology. The regnal year, he says, on the 1893 coin is 56; while on that of the next year (1894) 58 is given as the regnal year. The explanation is as follows:-The date of Her Majesty's accession or era[1] having been. 20th June, 1837, it follows that 55 years thereafter expired on 19th of June, 1892. Therefore
| (a). From 20 June, 1892, to 19 June, 1893 = Anno Regni 56 |
| (b). From„ 20 June,„ 1893 ,to 19„ June,„ 1894 Anno„ Regni„ 57 |
| (c). From„ 20 June,„ 1894 ,to 19„ June,„ 1895 Anno„ Regni„ 58 |
Thus we see that the 1893 coin, being issued between 1st January and 19th June, 1893, is properly dated A.R. 56; and the 1894 piece, issued between 20th June and 31st December, 1894, consequently shows A.R. 58. If your correspondent will refer to the proclamation for dissolving the last Parliament, he will find that it was superscribed, "This 8th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1895, and in the 59th year of our reign;" further proving no error exists as regards the regnal year on the coin in question.' I may also add to the foregoing a specimen of a very rare proclamation, viz., the first proclamation of the new Warden the Cinque Ports. Its terms are as follows:—Dated at Hatfield, in the County of Herts, under the scale of my office, the thirtieth day of June, in the sixtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, by grace of God of
- ↑ The era of Victoria is an allowable expression.
