path: root/78741-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78741 ***




Transcriber’s Notes:

  Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
    in the original text.
  Equal signs “=” before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold=
    in the original text.
  Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
  Footnotes and illustrations have been moved so they do not break up
    paragraphs.
  Deprecated spellings have been preserved.
  Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.




                            THE ROYAL MINT:

                _=Its Working, Conduct, and Operations,
                   Fully and Practically Explained;=_

                                  WITH
     SUGGESTIONS FOR ITS BETTER SCIENTIFIC AND OFFICIAL MANAGEMENT.
         RE-WRITTEN, ENLARGED, AND REVISED TO THE PRESENT TIME.
                   TO WHICH IS ADDED, AS AN APPENDIX,

        A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.

                      BY GEORGE FREDERICK ANSELL,
                          ANALYTICAL CHEMIST.
                        LATE OF THE ROYAL MINT,
              FORMERLY OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF CHEMISTRY.

                     _ILLUSTRATED WITH ENGRAVINGS._

      “To have a thing is little if you’re not allowed to show it;
    And to know a thing is nothing unless others know you know it.”

                              LORD NEAVES.

                             THIRD EDITION.

                             [Illustration]

                                LONDON:
                   EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.
                                 1871.

      _Entered at Stationers’ Hall._]      [_All rights reserved._


                                           Ipswich, _March 1st, 1871_.
    DEAR MR. ANSELL,

I have no objection to your appending to the third edition of your book
your letter to me in regard to your case, and my correspondence with
Mr. Gladstone and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if you add in
addition to this correspondence the report of the debate on my motion
for a committee to inquire into the management of the Mint, I should
wish to make some few remarks on the subject in question; but before
doing so I must take the opportunity of thanking you for letting me see
Mr. Fremantle’s letter in answer to your offer, made at my suggestion,
to meet Mr. Fremantle with a view to rendering him some assistance
(which from your great experience you are well able to do) in the
management of the Mint, which I have reason to know both he and Mr.
Lowe find _somewhat difficult_.

The answer is evidently dictated by Mr. Lowe. After his letter[1] to
me of the 29th April, 1869, I might have known that he was not likely
to do anything which might appear as if he owned himself in the wrong.
This letter, indeed, showed how annoyed Mr. Lowe was at my having seen
that most malicious report to the Treasury by Dr. Graham, which has
been the cause of your having been so unjustly dealt with, to the ruin,
in a great measure, of your prospects in life. Dr. Lyon Playfair at the
time threatened that if I moved to inquire into the management of the
Mint, he would move that that report be laid on the table of the House.
This would not have deterred me, as the report _itself_ would have been
the best refutation of the _insinuation_ it contained that you were
dismissed because you were guilty of the Mint practice of purloining
gold (whereas the note[2] relieving you from further attendance stated
that the short work at the Mint was the cause). Dr. Graham did not,
he said, believe the insinuation, and to show that he did not believe
it, although he had sent in the report to the Treasury, he authorised
me to offer you the situation (at an increased salary) filled by Mr.
Goodwin, who was to be retired, which of course you refused as being
far inferior to the one you held; and in further proof he wrote you
that handsome testimonial[3] which I read to the House of Lords.

[Footnote 1: See page 196.]

[Footnote 2: See page 186.]

[Footnote 3: See page 198.]

The report, however, _had served its purpose_ in preventing you from
being appointed to an office in the Mint.

I am sure Dr. Graham regretted that he had been induced by his brother,
whose animus against you was known throughout the Mint, to send in such
a report to the Treasury. Dr. Lyon Playfair’s threat, as I have said,
would not have deterred me from moving for a committee to inquire into
the malpractices of the Mint, but I confess that I had great scruples
in regard to Dr. Graham himself. I shall never forget the expression of
his face, and the fearful agitation the mention of my intention always
caused.

I confess I did hesitate to place a man of Dr. Graham’s great
scientific attainments in such a position as an inquiry would have
done, seeing also that his brother was just dead, and that I knew
individually Dr. Graham was in no way implicated in the malpractices
which formerly prevailed in the Mint; for, as you know, Dr. Graham
had soon after his appointment set to work to clear out that “Augean
stable,” which, with your assistance, he had almost accomplished till
in an evil moment he appointed his brother, to whose intemperate habits
I referred in the House of Lords,[4] to a responsible office in the
Mint.

Dr. Graham’s death following so soon after that of his brother, I was
greatly rejoiced at having delayed bringing the subject of the Mint
before Parliament, because I should have felt that I had been to some
extent instrumental in hastening that event by drawing attention to the
state of that Department.

On the occasion of the reading to me, by Dr. Lyon Playfair, of that
wicked report to the Treasury (to which I have previously alluded),
in the presence of Dr. Graham and of Mr. C. W. Fremantle, I urged, as
Dr. Graham exculpated you from all blame _insinuated_ by the report,
that in common justice you should be reinstated in some office in the
Mint, you having, with my advice, refused the position offered by Dr.
Graham through me, when Mr. Fremantle remarked as a reason against
your being appointed that “you were so unpopular with the officials;”
such unpopularity being in my opinion the natural result of the work
you had done at the request of Dr. Graham, and in the service of the
Mint. I say the work you had done, and use the expression on the
authority of Dr. Graham, copies of whose letters to the Treasury are
now in my possession, and in which he distinctly states that to you
mostly were due the reforms. There is no doubt, therefore, but that
you were exceedingly unpopular just in the sense that a detective
would be amongst the “light-fingered gentry,” and had I obtained the
committee for which I moved I could have shown the true grounds of
your unpopularity. I have collected some further valuable information
showing the necessity for a rigid and full inquiry into the affairs of
the Mint, which will show that the officials of a public department
are not justified in putting into the hands of a young and rising
member of the House of Lords statements which are not only erroneous,
but absolutely false, so that Lord Lansdowne was obliged to declare
that “he had on a previous occasion overstated the amount in regard to
the profit on silver;”[5] but again was he grossly misled by the Mint
officials when he stated “that there was a gain of £5,000 per annum
on the silver coinage”[6] (a considerable reduction on the former
statement) while the _return_ showed a positive and very great loss. It
would appear that the Mint officials mystify him, and that _he_, not
_I_, confuse two things.

[Footnote 4: See page 197.]

[Footnote 5: See page 146-148.]

[Footnote 6: See page 148-149.]

I alluded in the House to a job by Mr. Lowe in appointing Mr. Roberts,
and Lord Lansdowne in reply stated that Mr. Roberts was a _very eminent
chemist_ who had proved his capability by “_devising_ a system for
depriving brittle gold of the obnoxious properties on which I recently
commented.” Have you heard that the plan has been tried and found to
be a complete failure!!! I am also informed that Mr. Roberts _did
not devise_ the process in question, but that it was invented by a
really eminent chemist, who did not make the inquiry with a view to
its application under the circumstances which arise in the Mint, where
operations are conducted on so large a scale. The process is described
in the British Association Reports for 1848, and more fully in the
_Philosophical Magazine_ for 1850.

I have just received the Report of the Deputy-Master of the Mint, on
European Mints, which I have only had time to glance over. The report
is evidently framed with a view of meeting the allegations I made on
the appointment of the commission. It would appear, moreover, that Mr.
Fremantle and his colleagues have made a _very careful study of your
book_!!! which might have been done without the pleasant trip. For
the general public the reports are interesting as showing how foreign
mints are worked, but as far as the management of the English Mint
is concerned, and how a department which is a serious expense to the
country, and from which no one but the Bank of England and the employés
derive any profit, can be made, as it ought to be, a source of revenue,
the report does not show. I see it is proposed to build new offices,
“so constructed as to diminish facilities for peculation!!” I think
the real question is, would it not be better TO COIN BY CONTRACT—this
might be tried, at all events for a time, before the new offices are
commenced.

I almost fear this Mint question will not be taken up in the House
of Commons, as members are afraid to “tackle” Mr. Lowe, and in these
fearfully excited times the subject is _too dry_ for members to
interest themselves in; but I cannot understand how a Government bent
on economy and reforming abuses in the several Departments can allow
such wasteful extravagance and useless losses to go on, unless indeed
Mr. Lowe is dreaded as much at the Council Board as in the House of
Commons.

                                        Believe me,
                                           Dear Mr. Ansell,
                                                Yours faithfully,
                                              (Signed)     KINNAIRD.

             To G. F. Ansell, Esq.,
    27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, London, W.C.




PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.


Influential friends have advised me to issue the present as the
_third_ edition of “The Royal Mint” on the ground that a Treatise on
Coining which I wrote, at the request of Mr. Graham, for “Tomlinson’s
Cyclopædia,” of which Mr. Tomlinson allowed me to have a hundred copies
printed and bound separately for private circulation, was really the
first edition of the more extended work I have recently published. The
copies of that first edition were soon absorbed: indeed, owing to the
fact that there is little literature in relation to the Royal Mint, I
was flattered by foreign governments and foreign mints seeking from me
copies of that book. Such applications gave me pleasure, and as far as
I was able I complied with the requests preferred, except in the case
of the Spanish mint, for which institution Mr. Graham asked of me a
copy when, unfortunately, I had parted with the last at my disposal.
I was further gratified by the fact that the Imperial Government of
France sought permission to translate this book into French, with a
view to give a copy to each workman in the mints of that nation.

Under considerable pressure I re-wrote the book above spoken of for
public use, but omitted to style it, as I should have done, the
_second_ edition. This, in its turn, was most kindly received by those
whose opinions I value in both Houses of Parliament, as well as by
those who understand in an especial degree the subject of which I
treated; and I have reason to know that it has found its way to all,
even the most distant, parts of the world. It was produced, but not
replied to, by Ministers in both Houses of Parliament, and remains
yet uncontradicted (see page 198); indeed, I may assume that it has
been officially confirmed; for on the motion of the Right Honourable
Lord Kinnaird, returns were made to the House of Lords, which are
verbatim copies of some of the most damaging pages in my book up to and
inclusive of the dates then reached (see pages 91, 97, 102, 133, 135,
197-8). I say thus much in gratitude, for the subject I have chosen is
one which could hardly have induced me to expect for it so generous
a reception. I wrote it hoping only that the public would acquaint
themselves with the manner in which one of the principal Departments
of the Government was and is conducted. Lord Kinnaird, in the letter
which he has done me the honour to write, and permits me to print in
these pages, expresses an opinion—one that is largely entertained—that
Mr. Fremantle and his fellow-travellers to European mints are greatly
indebted to my books for the information on which they found their
opinions, as expressed in the reports on foreign mints. For their own
sakes as well as for the benefit of the nation, I would that those
gentlemen had followed in their entirety my suggestions, because such
a course would have enabled them to avoid those difficulties which
beset them, and pitfalls into which they will stumble in the carrying
out the designs expressed in these reports on European mints; these I
will discuss in the fitting place, but here I desire to thank those
gentlemen for such attention as they have given to my opinions.

The leading newspapers and periodicals have reviewed or noticed the
books in a kindly spirit, with but one exception, in which the writer
without refuting one statement indulged in personalities. To those
gentlemen of the Press who have spoken candidly and generously, I offer
my best thanks. I have endeavoured to correct the faults they pointed
out—unless, indeed, where principle was concerned; and, in deference
to the expressed opinions of some of my reviewers, I, now that a new
edition is called for, publish, by his Lordship’s authority, a letter
which I wrote to Lord Kinnaird at his Lordship’s request, giving a
history of my dissociation from the Mint, in which, I hope, will be
found evidence confirming the statements I make throughout the book.

I do not attempt to disguise the fact that I consider myself to have
been seriously wronged both by Mr. Thomas Graham and by the Treasury,
still I consider, wisely or unwisely, that my personal grievances are
of less interest to the public than is the principle involved. I,
however, deem it right to invite attention now to the subject of my
complaint,—fully set forth in the Appendix,—because it is illustrative
of the treatment a public servant will surely receive if he should
follow the intimation conveyed by the present Government, and,
neglecting the fact of his own relative position, fulfil the duties of
his office as he would do if the matter in hand were one of personal
concern. The Government of the Right Honourable W. E. Gladstone, from
their bench in the House of Commons, promised that “if each in his
especial sphere would faithfully fulfil the duties required in his
department irrespective of his nominal position,” “such public servant
should be duly rewarded:”—the Ministers might have added, and would
have so added had they been candid, “with immediate discomfort and by
ultimate dismissal, and that justice would be sought at _their_ hands
by such public servant in vain!”

The effect of a rule which obliges Ministers to support the “head of
a Department” “_under any and all circumstances_,” will be apparent
to all evenly balanced minds; and I from my own knowledge, without
fear of contradiction—except, indeed, official denial, which is now
so perfectly understood—state that the man who best succeeds in a
Government office is he who does unreasoningly and undoubtingly just
what he is told to do, and avoids giving offence to his superior
officers by pointing out any irregularity or improvement.

Upon the publication by Mr. Thomas Graham of the malevolent report he
had written to the Treasury, I, when that fact was made known to me,
obtained a high opinion, and in pursuance of advice then given, it was
my intention to proceed by action at law against Mr. Graham for libel,
but his early death made that step impossible.

With regard to the publication of the correspondence, it is right that
I should say that Lord Kinnaird had not intended to draw attention to
my case; but, when his Lordship found that the Marquess of Lansdowne
and His Grace the Duke of Argyll led off against me in the House of
Lords, as the Right Honourable Robert Lowe had done most bitterly in
the House of Commons on the previous Friday, he with great generosity
threw off the natural reluctance he had entertained to hurting the
feelings of Mr. Graham’s friends, and defended me with words and
documents so nobly that I can never sufficiently thank his Lordship, or
fittingly acknowledge the indebtedness I thereby incurred.

To Mr. Lowe, Lord Lansdowne, and the Duke of Argyll must be attributed
any pain which may arise to the friends of Mr. Graham, for Lord
Kinnaird desired to spare them; for myself, however, I would say
that if either of the Ministers named had obligingly pointed out any
presumedly false statement contained in the book which has so far
excited their anger, and proved its untruthfulness, instead of saying
hard words of the Author, I should have been less mindful of the sage
instructions given on a celebrated occasion to an eminent Advocate, “It
is a weak case, bully the counsel.”

Some of my readers will perhaps consider that the following pages
are overlaid with a strong personal feeling, and may therefore feel
disposed to lay the book aside. To such I would remark that it is
impossible to follow a pursuit of any kind earnestly, unless it be
made a matter of undivided interest. Besides, it must not be forgotten
that I was invited to go to the Mint solely on the ground of my known
determination to resist abuses. Having devoted fifteen years to the
subject of the Mint, it is not to be supposed that I can view its
mismanagement with less concern now than I did when selected for
appointment to that Department, that I might repress irregularities
which were then known to exist, and which appear to have been as yet
uneradicated.

With such remarks, I invite a perusal of my new edition by such members
of the legislature as are really desirous of reforming the abuses which
exist in the Royal Mint.


                 PREFATORY LETTER TO THE FIRST EDITION.

                                   TO
                      THOMAS GRAHAM, ESQ., F.R.S.,
                     MASTER OF THE MINT, ETC. ETC.

    SIR,

I have written a short article for “Tomlinson’s Cyclopædia,” for the
purpose of explaining (as far as the limited space at my disposal would
allow) some of the details of the process of Coining, and by permission
of Mr. Tomlinson I am allowed to have a few copies of that article
printed separately for private circulation.

I take advantage of this opportunity to acknowledge most gratefully
that the information I have been so fortunate as to obtain on the
subject of Coining has been gained in consequence of the opportunities
you have afforded me in my position in the Royal Mint. With heart-felt
thanks for the privileges you have accorded me, and for the support you
have given me,

                            I beg to remain, Sir,
                                    Your most faithful servant,
                                                    GEO. F. ANSELL.

    ROYAL MINT, _August, 1862_.




                PREFATORY LETTER TO THE SECOND EDITION.

                  27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, London, W.C.,
                                         _November 8th, 1869_.

    MY LORD,

I have ventured to ask permission to dedicate this book to your
Lordship, as a mark of my sense of the great kindnesses you have been
pleased to show to me through a series of years. As you, my Lord, will
perhaps permit me to remind you, generous efforts have been made by
many with a view to reinstate me in a position of which they and you
consider me to have been unjustly deprived—an opinion, I believe, your
Lordship has formed from a knowledge of all the facts.

The recent death of Mr. Thomas Graham puts an end to any personal
feeling between him and myself, whoever was right or whoever was wrong,
or even if there were faults on both sides, the matters which caused
a severance are better forgotten—our differences are beyond human
adjustment.

The information I have attempted to give in the following pages is
given solely with a view to throw as much light as is possible upon a
subject which is now attracting very considerable attention, and which
has become of national importance.

It will be to me a great pleasure if I may thus express the gratitude
I feel for the valuable assistance I have received from your Lordship
during a time of great trial and anxiety.

                    I have the honour to be,
                          My Lord,
    Your Lordship’s most faithfully obliged and humble servant,
                                                    GEORGE F. ANSELL.

    To the Right Hon. Lord Kinnaird, K.T., F.R.G.S.,
        Lord-Lieutenant of Perthshire, &c. &c. &c.




PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.


Perhaps it will be well that I should give a brief outline of the
circumstances antecedent to and attending my association with the
Royal Mint, because the facts and opinions which will be given in the
following pages appear to require such a notice, that their worth or
worthlessness may be estimated at its true value, as well as that the
sources of my information, and the modes of obtaining it, may be in the
hands of my readers.

In the early part of the year 1856 the Master of the Mint found himself
so beset with difficulties arising from irregularities committed by
those who should have supported him, that he formed a determination to
engage a person who should be indisputably a faithful and intelligent
officer in the Coining Department, and who at the same time had
sufficient personal influence to check those irregularities which he
knew were taking place, but which were beyond his personal supervision.
These irregularities were known to the Government of that period, and
had caused so vast an expense that that Government, which was presided
over by Lord Palmerston, had intimated to the Master, that unless
the Mint could be conducted more satisfactorily and economically, it
would be broken up as an Imperial establishment, and thus necessitate
the placing of the coinage in the hands of contractors. With this
view papers were printed and issued to various firms; but Mr. Graham,
being very sincere and energetic in his desire to so conduct the
Mint as that this necessity should not arise, sought the advice of
engineers and others, with a view to finding such a man as combined
within himself the qualities which he saw to be necessary. Finally,
by the advice of Dr. A. W. Hofmann, he called upon me at my residence
in October, 1856, and related to me in detail the facts above alluded
to, and explained precisely the position of affairs at the Mint,
giving me the names of the troublesome persons, and showing his own
position to be so intolerable, that without some one on whom he could
rely, it would be impossible for him to continue his Mastership. Mr.
Graham then proceeded to tell me what had passed between Dr. Hofmann
and himself as to my fitness for the work required, and explained
clearly the impossibility of placing me in a secure position or in high
office at first, but that if I would accept a supernumerary clerkship
temporarily, he would, when I had effected the object of his desires,
advise my promotion to the office then held by Mr. W. T. Brande, when
that office should become vacant. With this understanding I agreed
to accept the position proposed if duly appointed; but that I might
be able to carry out such reforms as were necessary, I insisted on
sufficient power being given to me by himself or by the Government. In
pursuance of this agreement, Mr. Graham recommended my appointment in
a letter to the Treasury, dated 29th October, 1856, in the following
terms:—

“I desired to introduce a young man, recommended by scientific and
technical information available in coining, by energy of character,
and by tried ability in the supervision of workmen—a faculty by no
means common. After applying to Mr. William Fairbairn and to Mr. George
Rennie, who both recommended candidates, and making inquiry in various
other quarters, I have been led to propose the name of Mr. George
Frederick Ansell as temporary clerk. Mr. Ansell was educated under Dr.
Hofmann, and acted for some years as his laboratory assistant. He has
since been Scientific Director in the Panopticon, Leicester Square,
which was lately broken up. He appears to be a person of superior
education and ability, and great activity and vigour of character, and,
as I have been assured, has shown much discretion in the management of
both pupils and workmen.”

In accordance with this recommendation I was appointed to a
supernumerary clerkship, and took office in the Rolling Room of
the Royal Mint; but before doing so I particularly inquired of Mr.
Graham, in the presence of Mr. W. H. Barton, the then Deputy-Master,
what authority I should have, and how far I should be supported if I
attempted to enforce obedience, and whether I was at liberty to call
for statements and examine original documents and books. He verbally
authorised me to examine such books as I wished to examine, and desired
Mr. Barton to give me such statements or information as I might ask
for; and as to my authority, he said, “If you order the men to dance
a hornpipe on the table, they shall do it, and all orders shall pass
through your hands.” With such power, and a salary of £120 a year, or
rather £10 a month, I took office on the 12th November, 1856.

My personal experience of men and manners in the Mint is recorded
in another book, but in this I feel it right to adhere rigidly to
explanations of the processes of coining, and to treat of the expense
and loss attending the manipulation of the precious metals; and in the
latter pages I will demonstrate what formerly was, and what should be,
the cost of producing a coined sovereign, each statement being the
result of actual experience, and capable of proof.




THE ROYAL MINT.


Coining is the term applied to the processes employed in the
manufacture of money. It is proposed to describe the present mode of
manufacture; but it may be as well to state, that in remote periods
money was made by cutting out a piece of metal somewhat of the form
of the intended coin, and imparting the device to it by the blow of a
sledge-hammer. For this purpose the blank piece of metal was laid upon
a die, say the obverse, fixed into a block of wood or stone, supposed
to have been so large as to absorb the vibration caused by the blow,
and to a great extent prevent the quivering which would naturally
arise, and cause unsteadiness. The workman then took the other die, say
the reverse, and passing it through a folded sheet of lead, in order to
avoid the shock to the hand, he placed the engraved part on the blank,
which was resting on the lower die, and held it firmly while another
workman struck it with a sledge-hammer. It is worthy of remark that a
piece of lead such as that described is in the Museum of Dies at the
Royal Mint; and although its surface, by the action of the atmosphere
and other causes, is now converted into carbonate of lead, indentations
caused by the tips of the workman’s fingers are evident. This piece is
believed to have been used with a die of Edward IV. At a later period
the upper die was held in a twisted hazel stick. After each blow the
dies were what is technically termed locked together; that is, the
lower and upper dies were made to fit into the partly-formed coin, so
that neither die could turn without turning the whole mass, and then
a second or third blow was given, till the coin was completed. An
improvement on this method was effected by fitting the two dies into
rods of iron, which may be represented as a pair of tongs; the flat
parts which are used to take a coal would then be the position occupied
by the dies. This plan saved the operator some risk of bruised fingers,
but the process was essentially the same as the original one; and to
money produced by either means was applied the term _hammered_ money,
in contradistinction to _milled_ money; that is, money which was made
from blanks obtained from fillets which had been rolled in a very rough
kind of rolling mill, driven by horse power—the germ from which sprang
the present machinery. On this point it is perhaps of interest to quote
a passage from the Report made to the Lords of the Treasury in 1695 by
Mr. William Lowndes, who says:—“All the moneys we have now in England,
both gold and silver, are reducible to two sorts, one stamped with the
hammer, and the other pressed with an engine called the mill. The gold
or silver of the hammered money is first cast from the melting-pot into
long bars, those bars are cut with shears into several square pieces of
exact weight for sovereigns, angels, crowns, half-crowns, shillings,
&c. Then with tongs and hammer they are forged into a round shape,
after which they are blanched (that is, made white or refulgent by
nealing or boiling), and afterwards stampt or impressed with an hammer
to make them perfect money. This method of making money with the hammer
(as appears in the said red book) was practised in the reign of King
Edward the first” [the book referred to is in the Exchequer] “and this
kind of hammered money continued through all the reigns of succeeding
Kings and Queens till about the year of our Lord 1663, when by several
warrants and command of the King, Charles the Second: to wit, by one
warrant, dated the fifth of November, 1662; one warrant, dated the
eighth of April, 1663; and a third warrant, dated the twenty-fourth
of December, 1663; the other sort, called _milled money_, was first
fabricated to be current in England in this manner: first, the gold or
silver is cast out of the melting-pot into long flat bars, which bars
are drawn through a mill (wrought by a horse), to produce the just
thickness of guineas, half-guineas, crowns, half-crowns, shillings,
&c. Then with forcible engines called _cutters_, which answer exactly
to the respective sizes or dimensions of the money to be made, the
round pieces are cut out from the flat bar, shaped as aforesaid (the
residue whereof, called sizel, is melted again), and then every piece
is weighed and made to agree exactly with the intended weight, and
afterwards carried to other engines (wrought secretly), which put the
letters upon the edges of the larger silver pieces, and mark the edges
of the rest with a graining. The next thing is the blanching, performed
as above; and at last every piece is brought to the press, which is
called the _mill_ (wrought of the strength of men), and there receives
the impression, which makes it perfect _milled_ money.”

The processes now used are as elaborate as the old methods were simple;
but considering the requirements of the present day, and the enormous
quantity of money produced, it must not be expected that our coins
will, for depth of engraving, bear comparison with those of the Romans,
who, though succeeding in producing finished works of art, seem to have
forgotten the wear and tear to which they would be subjected, and so
left them, as a rule, free from a protecting edge; hence they would
lose their image and superscription at a far earlier date from their
birth or manufacture than would well-made coins of the present period.

It was formerly believed that gold could be sent to the Mint to be
coined free of charge to the importer; such, however, was not the case.
By the Act 33 Victoria, cap. 10, several Acts relating to the coinage
are repealed, and all persons[7] obtain the right to send gold to the
Mint to be coined on the following terms:—

    “8. Where any person brings to the Mint any gold bullion,
    such bullion shall be assayed and coined, and delivered
    out to such person, without any charges for such assay or
    coining, or for waste in coinage. Provided that (1)—If
    the fineness of the whole of the bullion so brought to the
    Mint is such that it cannot be brought to the standard
    fineness under this Act of the coin to be coined thereout
    without refining some portion of it, the Master of the Mint
    may refuse to receive, assay, or coin such bullion. (2)
    Where the bullion so brought to the Mint is finer than the
    standard fineness under this Act of the coin to be coined
    thereout, there shall be delivered to the person bringing
    the same such additional amount of coin as is proportionate
    to such superior fineness. No undue preference shall be
    shown to any person under this section, and every person
    shall have priority according to the time at which he
    brought such bullion to the Mint.”

The standard for gold is fixed by the new Act at “Twenty-two carats
fine and two carats of alloy in the pound weight troy”—the same that
was specified in the 3rd Edward VI., 35th Elizabeth, 2nd Charles I.,
and 18th Charles II. Silver is maintained at the former standard of
“Eleven ounces two pennyweights fine silver and eighteen pennyweights
of alloy in every pound weight troy.” Until the passing of this Act
silver was coined under that of George III., which repealed the Act 18
Charles II., as regards the coining of silver free of charge. The Act
33 Victoria, cap. 10, repeals that of George III., but fails to make
provision for the coining of silver, which is therefore now coined
under the Common Law; yet the new Act specifies the weight and fineness
of the silver coinage. The omission was made because the Chancellor
of the Exchequer thought it “unfair to introduce silver to this Act
as it is a source of revenue;” a little later I will examine this
statement.[8]

The Bank of England is practically the only “importer” of bullion to
the Mint, and by coinage makes a considerable profit merely from its
exceptional circumstances. By its charter and by Act of Parliament
it is compelled to keep a stock of bullion equivalent to the excess
of its authorised issue of notes—such authorised issue being secured
by “Government debt” and “other securities”—which at the present
time is fifteen millions; and gold, when at the Mint for coining, is
esteemed as being still at the Bank. By the Act 7 and 8 Victoria, cap.
32, section 4, the Bank of England is compelled to purchase bullion,
previously melted and assayed at the cost of the seller, at the rate
of £3 17_s._ 9_d._ per ounce of standard gold, paying for it in Bank
of England notes. Assuming that all the gold thus purchased is coined,
the Bank makes a profit[9] of about £2,000 on each million. When its
authorities desire to coin gold they give notice at the Mint, and
subsequently send at stated intervals “importations” of say 200 ingots
of gold, each weighing about 180 ounces, and previously assayed. Upon
the arrival of these ingots at the Mint, they are taken to an office,
where, in the presence of an officer from the Bank of England, a
small piece is cut from each ingot, and hammered out into a kind of
strip. This piece is then put into a paper marked with a letter which
corresponds with the mark or letter on the individual ingot from which
it was taken. This having been effected for each ingot, the pieces are
forwarded with their respective ingots to the Mint Office, where their
weight is determined and compared with that charged by the Bank of
England. The pieces which have been hammered out and placed in a marked
packet are called the “assay pieces.” The assay pieces are sent to the
resident assayer in the Mint, who estimates and reports to the Master
the amount of pure gold in each ingot. The report of the resident
assayer is then submitted to the Bank authorities, and if they find it
to agree with their own assayer’s report, the ingots are retained for
operations in the Mint. When it is desired to get the ingots of gold
into a form fit for coining, they have to be alloyed with copper, or
fine gold must be added, so as to bring them to standard or crown gold,
which consists of 22 parts of pure gold and 2 parts of alloy, or 91·66
per cent. of gold and 8·33 per cent. of copper in 100 parts. Copper is
usually employed because it is cheaper, and forms a harder alloy than
silver.

[Footnote 7: See page 169.]

[Footnote 8: See pages 126, 144-156.]

[Footnote 9: See pages 126-127, 168.]

Supposing there are 100 ingots, having a total weight of 18,000 oz.,
and by assay it has been found that they contain 17,900 oz. of pure
gold, it is required to bring them to the standard fixed by law. A
rule-of-three sum tells how much alloy or how much gold is to be added.
So, if 22 parts of pure gold require 2 parts of alloy, how much alloy
will 17,900 parts require? The fourth term of the following proportion,
viz., as 22:2::17,900:1,627·027, will show how much is to be added; but
since there are already 100 oz. of alloy present, as indicated by the
fact that 18,000 oz. contain within themselves only 17,900 oz. of pure
gold, it is only necessary to add the excess required, viz., 1,527·027,
so that these 100 ingots will produce 19,527·027 oz. of standard gold.
Had the ingots been found to contain more alloy than is required,
it would have been necessary to add so much pure gold as would have
rendered the whole standard. The proportions of the metals having been
determined, the whole mass is divided so as to make about 1,200 oz.
of gold and alloy for each melting-pot. In practice it is customary
to take the estimated amount of gold in a given number of ingots, and
add so much alloy, or so much pure gold, as shall bring those ingots
to standard, the whole weight being generally about 1,200 oz.; this is
called _potting_ the ingots. Ingots are almost invariably melted, and
cast into bars for sovereigns.

I must here mention that the various illustrations I have introduced
were originally used for the article “COINING” in TOMLINSON’S
“CYCLOPÆDIA,” and the permission to use them here has been generously
granted to me by _Messrs. Virtue and Co._, whose property they are.

In the illustrative engravings, the initial letters used to indicate
the different parts are made to take their places in accordance with
the order in which the various parts of the machine under description
come into play, so that by tracing out the alphabet in any figure, the
reader will see the consecutive action of the parts of the machine he
is studying.

[Illustration: Fig. 1.—Gold Melting.]

Fig. 1 represents the arrangements for melting the ingots with their
alloy, for producing standard gold. In the Mint there are seven
furnaces: each furnace, A, is 12 inches square and 24 inches deep to
the top of the bars, which are seen at the ash-pit B. The pot C is
made of a mixture of Stourbridge clay and plumbago, hence called a
_plumbago pot_; it is 9¼ inches deep, and 7 inches across at the top
inside. The pot, previously annealed, is placed in the furnace on a
_bottom_ which stands upon the two centre bars. The bottom is intended
to shelter the base of the pot C from the stream of air which is
necessary to the combustion of the fuel, but which would damage the
pot. The pot is then covered by its muffle and lid, and surrounded by
fuel, which, as it burns up, warms and then heats the pot to redness,
but so gradually that there is no great risk of breaking the pot. When
the pot has become of a full red heat, the ingots are carefully placed
in it, and the alloy is added by means of the funnel I: the pot is
then covered up, and allowed to remain till the whole mass of metal
has liquefied. The foreman then stirs it with a rod made of the same
substance as the pot, and allows it to remain till the fluid mass has
reached a peculiar temperature, known by experience as that at which
the metal, when poured into a mould, forms the most solid and workable
bar. This temperature having been gained, the two outside bars at B
are removed, the ash-pit is then covered to protect the men’s feet,
and the firing poked out. The lid and muffle are next removed from
the pot, and the pot lifted by an assistant from the furnace by the
crane D. The foreman then conveys the pot C, by means of a pair of
tongs which clasp it, to the frame of moulds, when an assistant brings
forward a loop of iron, suspended by a chain and cord from the roof
of the building, and passing the loop of iron over a button on the
end of the lower clamp of the tongs, as shown at E, F, supports the
weight of the pot by the cord, as indicated at G. Previously to the
melting, pieces of charcoal are placed at the bottom of the pot for
the purpose of reducing any oxide that may be present in the alloy—and
Dr. Percy has found that copper can dissolve 13·50 per cent. of oxide
of copper—because oxide of copper, when dissolved in standard gold,
frequently renders the mass so brittle that when the bars produced are
passed between the rollers they crack and break, just as does gold
containing minute quantities of lead or zinc. The influence of oxide
of copper on standard gold was thus very marked in 1859, when a large
proportion of the gold was so brittle, that if a bar were dropped on
the floor, or tapped with a hammer, it broke, just as heated brass
breaks under similar circumstances. Mr. Richard Smith had some years
since pointed out that if copper in which oxide of copper is dissolved
be poured through an atmosphere of coal gas, all the oxide is reduced.
I therefore submitted this gold to the process thus suggested to reduce
all the oxide of copper, and produced bars so tough that they could
not be broken by a sledge hammer unless after repeated bending by that
means. Yet this gold was not thus cured of its brittleness, but was
treated peculiarly, as will be seen in a future place.[10]

[Footnote 10: See pages 50-53.]

When the metal is fused, the charcoal which was placed at the bottom
is brought to the surface by stirring, and as it rises through the
fluid alloy, reduces the oxide of copper, and remains on the surface to
protect the alloy from the action of atmospheric oxygen. In order to
prevent it from falling into the moulds, the assistant holds a piece
of stick at the mouth of the pot, thus allowing the gold to pass, but
stopping the charcoal. The foreman, in the case of gold, judges almost
wholly by the eye, but in the case of silver by the ear, as to when
the moulds are filled. The metal poured from each pot forms four bars.
The moulds H are made of iron, cast into such a form that each piece
viewed from the top has the form of the letter =T=, so that three
pieces placed together form two moulds; the whole of the set is held in
its position by cross-bars, L, which fit into notches cut in the main
frame M, where will be seen two powerful screws by which the moulds are
forced tightly together after the cross-bars L are fixed. J represents
the pots placed so as to be kept dry and ready for use; K, the wheels
and tram on which the frame of moulds runs. The whole of the set of
moulds having been filled, the screws at M are loosened, the bars, L,
removed, and the parts of the several moulds removed, so that the bar
in each mould is exposed to view. The workman takes each bar as it is
exposed by a pair of tongs, and plunges it into a cistern of cold water
to insure rapid cooling, and then places it on a bench, where the
bars produced from each pot are separated and marked with a number, to
indicate the pot from which they were poured, and the entire set with
letters, to indicate the day on which the melting took place. After
these distinctive marks have been placed on the bars, two assay pieces
are taken from the bars from each pot.

[Illustration: Fig. 2.—Silver Melting.]

As silver melting,[11] when discreetly conducted, is slightly different
in some of its details, it will be well to describe it here. In Fig. 2,
A indicates the furnace with the front removed, to exhibit the internal
arrangements. The furnace is circular, and is 21·5 inches across, and
31 inches deep. The bars, which are represented by dotted lines, are
removable at will. The _bottom_ B stands on the centre bars, just
as in the case of gold melting: it is filled with coke dust, which
retains any silver issuing from a small accidental crack or pin-hole
in the pot, and also offers a non-conducting medium for the pot C to
rest upon, it being necessary to avoid the abstraction of heat by the
current of air against the base of the pot. A muffle, D, is placed on
the pot, and upon this muffle the lid E rests. The pot is circular,
and provided with a lip, to facilitate the pouring of the metal; it
is made of wrought-iron, 12 inches across at the top, and 15 inches
deep, and when melting for florins is charged with 4,800 ounces of
silver. As in the case of gold, so with silver, the metal is alloyed
with copper; standard silver being composed of 222 parts of pure silver
and 18 parts of copper in 240 parts, or 92·50 parts of silver and 7·50
of copper in 100 parts.[12] The calculations based on the assays from
ingots are just the same as in the case of gold. The ingots are put
into the pot, and the lid is placed on the muffle (which is intended to
prevent metal from falling over the top of the pot during the process
of fusion, as sometimes might happen when _scissel_[13] is melted),
and the furnace is then closed, so that the air enters through the
bars, and passes into the chimney through the flue F. The lid of the
furnace G is provided with peep-holes, by which the temperature can
be regulated at will, while they also admit of a survey of the state
of the furnace. When the fusion is complete, and carried so far as
to raise the fluid metal to the necessary temperature, the bars of
the furnace, with the exception of those which support the pot, are
removed, and the fuel is poked out, because the pot at this temperature
is so soft that it would be _torn_ if it were pulled through the fuel.
The lid and muffle are next taken off by tongs, and the crane is swung
round by the handle, H, till its tongs are brought over the furnace,
when, by working the handle I, the tongs J are lowered till they come
to the pot; the foreman then makes them seize the pot, and by a signal
gives his order for the raising of the pot from the furnace. Pieces
of fuel and iron scaling are knocked off from the pot by the foreman
with a brush kept in a crucible of water, indicated by V at the foot
of the crane. The crane is then swung round by H, till the pot is over
the cradle K, when it is lowered and secured in the cradle by the
screw, shown at C. The frame of moulds is now run under the lip of the
pot, and the foreman, by means of the handle L, which will be seen to
communicate with the wheels M, and the rack N, tilts the pot so that
the fluid metal may pour in a good stream into one of the moulds O,
until, by the sound, he judges it to be full; he then lowers the pot,
while his assistant, who is also watching the filling of the moulds,
turns the handle P, which, by the wheel Q fitting into the rack R,
moves forward the frame of moulds so far as to allow another mould to
come beneath the lip of the pot, to be filled as before. The fluid
silver in the melting-pot is covered with charcoal, for the same reason
as explained in gold melting, and this is kept back by means of a large
piece of charcoal laid at the mouth of the melting-pot. The frame of
moulds runs on wheels S, and at T is provided with a rack and pinion,
by which the moulds may be moved farther from or nearer to the lip of
the pot, which, as it is tilted, is continually altering its relative
position to the mouth of the moulds, and would, were it not for this
arrangement, pour its metal outside of, or upon the moulds, instead
of into them. The moulds are formed of =T= pieces, in the same manner
as the moulds for gold, and are secured in their position by the same
method, the cross-bars being shown at U. The bars, having been taken
from the moulds, are cooled in water, and distinctively marked, as in
the case of gold. Assay pieces are cut from them, but in the case of
silver three assays are taken from the bars produced from each pot.

[Footnote 11: See pages 129-138.]

[Footnote 12: See pages 3, 73.]

[Footnote 13: This word is explained at page 35.]

The bars for different denominations of coins are proportioned in their
width, so as to admit of two rows of blanks being cut from the fillets
produced from them. The following statement gives the whole facts
concerning bars for each coin, as used in the Royal Mint. It would be
well to produce bars of a uniform thickness of 0·50 inch, as such bars
may be cast solid, and when cast produce better fillets with half the
rolling, without the cost of annealing. There would be also another
advantage, for the blanks obtained from the fillets produced from bars
0·50 inch thick would not require annealing, and would thus save the
cost of that process, as well as the loss occasioned by it, while the
coins produced would wear immeasurably longer in circulation. There are
other considerations why this thickness should be at once adopted, as
will be shown when the subject of loss by coining is explained.

I am glad to notice that Mr. Fremantle, in his Report on European
Mints, proposes to adopt my recommendation, as shown by the following
passage, page 9:—

    “... It would seem to be a question whether in a newly
    organised Mint considerable time and labour might not be
    saved by reducing the size of the moulds in which both gold
    and silver bars are cast. The result would be that, as
    bars would be thinner when first subjected to the process
    of rolling, the time now occupied by that process would
    be sensibly diminished. It should also be mentioned that
    although there is great difficulty in producing sound
    castings if the thickness of the bars should be reduced, it
    might nevertheless, for the metallurgical reasons which Mr.
    Roberts points out, be advisable to make this alteration.”

There is really no “_difficulty_ in producing sound castings if the
thickness should be reduced;” but I fear there are many DIFFICULTIES
in the Royal Mint itself. Indeed the casting of the bronze bars—whose
thickness is less than that I propose for those of gold—gives evidence
of the ease with which thinner bars may be produced; yet against
_these, insuperable difficulties_ were urged until I experimentally
demonstrated how easily they could be cast.

    STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS AS REGARDS BARS USED FOR COINING.

    +--------+---------------+-------+--------+----------+--------+
    | Metal. |Denomination of|Length.|Breadth.|Thickness.|Average |
    |        |intended coin. |       |        |          |Weight. |
    +--------+---------------+-------+--------+----------+--------+
    |        |               |Inches.|Inches. | Inches.  |Troy oz.|
    |Gold    | Sovereign     |  24   | 1·375  |  1·000   |  320   |
    |        | Half-Sovereign|  24   | 1·125  |  1·000   |  250   |
    +--------+-----------------------+--------+----------+--------+
    |        | Crown         |  22   | 2·750  |  1·000   |  300   |
    |        | Half-Crown    |  22   | 2·500  |  1·000   |  240   |
    |        | Florin        |  21   | 2·125  |  1·000   |  220   |
    |Silver  | Shilling      |  21   | 1·437  |  1·000   |  150   |
    |        | Sixpence      |  21   | 1·125  |  1·000   |  120   |
    |        | Fourpence     |  21   | 0·875  |  1·000   |   96   |
    |        | Threepence    |  21   | 0·875  |  1·000   |   96   |
    +--------+-----------------------+--------+----------+--------+
    |        | Penny         |  24   | 2·500  |  0·375   |  100   |
    |Bronze  | Halfpenny     |  24   | 3·000  |  0·375   |  117   |
    |        | Farthing      |  24   | 3·000  |  0·375   |  117   |
    +--------+---------------+-------+--------+----------+--------+

It is to be regretted that crowns, half-crowns, and fourpences are no
longer coined. It has been represented to me by many manufacturers and
others who employ vast numbers of men, that the disuse of the fourpenny
piece has caused considerable inconvenience in the weekly payments to
their workpeople. The objection to this coin would appear to be that it
is so nearly the diameter of the threepenny piece; but this is obviated
by the fact that the edge of the latter is plain, while that of the
fourpenny is crenated or “milled.”

The assay pieces,[14] when cut from the bars, are placed in the
divisions of a tray going from left to right, so that there can be
no mistake as to the number of the pot from which the metal comes;
each assay piece is then placed in a small envelope, marked with a
distinctive mark, to characterise the pot from which it came. The assay
pieces are sent in equal numbers to the two non-resident assayers,
who determine, irrespectively of each other, the amount of gold found
in each piece. Suppose we trace one assay piece, and imagine that 120
are undergoing the same process at the same time. The assay piece is
flattened out into a kind of ribbon, and from it three pieces are cut,
each weighing half a gramme. Each piece of this weight takes the name
of a _thousand_, and is represented by the figures 1,000; but of course
it may be called a pound, a ton, or by any other denomination. Each
piece is wrapped in paper, with three times its weight of silver in two
pieces, both metals being of the same thickness. The parcels, as they
may now be called, are ready for the next process, and are arranged
in their proper places from left to right in the divisions of a tray,
and taken to the assaying furnace. In the assaying furnace is placed a
Payen[15] muffle, or kind of oven, perforated at places so as to allow
a limited amount of atmospheric air to pass from the interior through
its sides into the furnace. The muffle is surrounded with fuel, so that
it is kept at a good—almost white—heat. On the floor of the muffle is
sprinkled some bone ash—obtained by burning bones to whiteness—and on
this bone ash is placed a set of 40 cupels, or little cups, made of
compressed bone ash, and about as big as a florin, and so deep as to
hold about half a teaspoonful of water. When the cupels have been in
the muffle long enough to become red hot, a piece of lead of about nine
times the weight of the gold to be assayed is put into each cupel,
taking care not to let any lead fall over, or it would destroy the
muffle. So soon as the lead has melted, the paper parcels containing
the gold and the silver are placed one in each cupel of melted lead.
In a short time the gold and silver melt together, and, as it were,
dissolve in the lead; then a kind of circulation of the fluid metallic
mixture is observed to take place; and during this circulation, the
lead, as it is presented to the surface, meets with the oxygen of the
atmosphere, and combining with it, forms oxide of lead, which at that
temperature is fluid, and drains into the substance of the cupel,
carrying with it the copper and other impurities contained originally
in the gold, leaving in the cupel a button which contains all the pure
gold and the silver. The cupellation occupies about ten minutes, and
at the end of that time the little mass of fused metal is observed to
brighten up, the signal by which the assayer knows that the process is
finished, and he withdraws the cupels one by one, tilting the fluid
globule on one side, that it may incorporate with it any small globule
which may chance to be upon the side of the cupel. Some assayers
close the doorway of their muffles as the time of the brightening up
of the assay approaches, to avoid the access of the atmosphere till
the buttons have become solid, because the button of metal—by its
silver—absorbs oxygen; and giving off this oxygen at the moment of
solidification, spurts or opens, leaving the button hollow or ragged.
This precaution is not thought necessary by all assayers, nor, indeed,
is this system invariably followed, for some prefer to wrap the gold
and silver in the lead foil which is to be used, and do not care to
have the precious metals of identical thickness; these assayers use a
smaller proportion of silver, viz., 15 parts to 6 of standard gold,
or 17·50 to that which they judge to be _fine_, with a view to avoid
the danger of “spurting;” they also save time by withdrawing the whole
batch of cupels on a tray by means of a peel. The button is taken from
the cupel as soon as it has been detached, either by dropping a little
water on to it, or by allowing it to cool spontaneously, and it is
then hammered out into a strip and annealed. It is next rolled into
a ribbon or fillet, and again annealed, after which it is curled up
into the form of a letter S. Some prefer to roll the piece into a kind
of cushion, but in such a case it is more difficult to remove all the
silver; the proper plan is to expose as large a surface as possible to
the action of the acid in the next operation.

[Footnote 14: See pages 9, 53.]

[Footnote 15: That is, made by Payen, of Paris.]

The S-shaped fillet is put into a flask of nitric acid of specific
gravity 1·23, and the flask is placed in a little cup of brass,
which stands over a small gas-burner, while the neck of the flask
enters a kind of flue, through which a current of air is continually
passing into the chimney of the furnace. The flask being placed in
its position, the gas is lighted, and a gentle heat applied, when the
nitric acid dissolves out the silver from the S-shaped fillet, and is
known to have done its work when red fumes cease to be evolved. The
acid is then poured off, and the remaining sponge of metal is washed
with distilled water, and boiled with concentrated nitric acid, which
removes the remainder of the silver. The sponge of gold is now washed
with water, to remove the nitrate of silver, and is then heated to
redness in a capsule to render it tough, for in its spongy state it is
so rotten that it will not bear to be touched; and although it remains
spongy, it is toughened by being heated to redness. It is now called
a _cornet_. This spongy state is a consequence of the addition of
silver, the presence of which, and its subsequent removal, produce a
separation of the particles of the gold. The gold is thus formed into
a kind of network or sponge, so that the acid can get at every part of
it, and remove any metal which is soluble in the acid. Diluted acid
is used first, because if there be any lead left it is dissolved out,
and because the action of the strong acid is so violent, that part of
it would probably be carried out from the flask. Nitric acid, when
boiling, is liable to form bubbles of gas, which expanding, give rise
to what is called _bumping_; hence it is usual to put a charred pea
into the flask, and this, floating on the surface, causes a more even
flow of vapour and gases, and so prevents bumping. It is probable that
the charred pea determines the boiling at one particular temperature,
for it is found that water, if it be floated in a fluid of a higher
boiling point than itself, may be raised considerably above its
ordinary boiling point, although remaining quiescent till disturbed
by a rod or point. The cornet is next weighed, and as it has been
begun under the idea that it was a _thousand_—1,000—all that it weighs
short of 1,000 is the alloy which has been removed, the object having
been to determine how much pure gold was present in the alloy. There
is, however, a source of error in the process which requires to be
explained.

It is found to be practically impossible to remove every trace of
silver from the cornet; it is therefore necessary to make an allowance,
the amount of which is determined by a _proof_. The proof consists of
a mixture of gold and silver of known proportions, so that if all the
silver be removed from a thousand—1,000—the remaining cornet should
weigh exactly 916·6. Four of these proofs are worked with each batch of
assays—a batch being 120 assays—under precisely similar circumstances,
every precaution being taken that the four shall be equally distributed
over different parts of the furnace, &c. Now suppose that the proofs,
instead of weighing 916·6, as they would weigh if the whole of the
silver were removed, were found each to weigh 916·9; it would be known
that 000·3 of silver had been retained, and must be deducted from each
of the whole batch of assays. If the assays of coins exceed the limits
of from 917·6 to 915·6, they are repeated, as it is assumed that an
error has arisen. The convenience of considering the ½ gramme as 1,000
consists in the fact that 1,000 parts of standard gold contain 916·67
of gold and 83·33 of alloy; so that the result having been arrived at
without any calculation, one source of error is avoided and time is
saved.

Messrs. Johnson, Matthey, and Co. have invented a tray of platinum
capsules or thimbles, into which the assay pieces are placed for
treatment with acid, instead of into the ordinary glass vessels over
gas-burners. The advantages of this invention are too manifest to
require elaboration; but saving of acid, gas, labour, and risk of
error are amongst the chief of them; and besides, the plan has been in
successful operation in their own assay offices in Hatton Garden, as
well as in other important assay offices, for several years past. The
first cost would seem to be the principal objection to this plan of
Messrs. Johnson, Matthey, and Co.; but this is really a small matter,
for the apparatus becomes stock in trade, and its cost should be
viewed simply as so much capital, whose interest is paid by the saving
effected in glass, but more especially by the smaller amount of acid
actually employed, while the platinum can at all times be sold for
nearly its original cost as old metal.

The mode of operation is as follows:—A stand of slate is so arranged
that a means of heating is made to rest on its base. For this purpose
a jet of gas is preferred; where, however, gas cannot be obtained,
an ordinary oil lamp or a charcoal fire may be used. On a shelf over
the source of heat are placed two or three receptacles of platinum,
each communicating with a vessel made of porcelain, provided with
three necks and an overflow pipe. There is a kind of sieve or tray of
platinum, so arranged as to carry from 16 to 100 thimbles of platinum,
and provided with a handle, so that this tray, with its charge, can be
manipulated at pleasure. The thimbles vary in size according to taste,
but each one is cut or slit at the bottom, so that the solution of
silver as it is formed may by its density fall out, and allow the clean
acid to take its place.

When an operation is to be performed, the tray filled with the charged
thimbles—that is, containing the assay pieces—is placed in one of the
platinum receptacles or boilers, and heated to a fitting temperature;
when the desired effect is produced, the tray is lifted into another
receptacle, and again heated; this may be carried to three times if
necessary. The products of decomposition of the acid go, with the acid
which evaporates, into the porcelain vessel, where the free acid falls
through the overflow pipe into a proper chamber, while the acid fumes
pass into the flue through the third neck before spoken of. The parted
assays having been washed by several immersions in boiling distilled
water, without removal from their thimbles, have now to be dried and
annealed in a platinum muffle, so formed as to fit into an ordinary
muffle, and, after annealing, to be weighed in the usual manner, having
saved at least 75 per cent. of the usual trouble.

It is almost needless to add that the system of _proofs_ above
described must be also used with this process.

The assay for silver is not so tedious, as it is finished at the point
where it leaves the muffle on the cupel; but up to this point it passes
through precisely the same process as the gold.

It will have been observed that the event of the process of assaying is
to exhibit the proportion of _bullion_ which may be present in a given
weight of mixed metals, but that it does not demonstrate the character
of the substance which forms the alloy, because this is assumed to
be copper or silver. In practice it is found that the alloy may be
a mixture of copper or silver with lead, mercury, antimony, arsenic,
tin, or zinc, in varying proportions, but whose sum does not exceed the
rate per centum in relation to the bullion which is allowed by law. The
existence of minute proportions of lead, mercury, antimony, arsenic,
tin, or zinc is a matter of great concern, for these, when present, add
indefinitely to the difficulties of the coining departments.

Under the present system, complete analyses of bullion imported for
coining are a practical impossibility. I would therefore propose to
abolish the office of non-resident assayer, and then to appoint two
resident assayers, who should conduct their operations in independent
laboratories—already existent—and a condition of whose appointment
should be an agreement to conduct, when so directed by the Master
of the Mint, complete analyses of the bullion submitted for assay.
The information thus obtained would enable the melter, by processes
subsequently explained,[16] to remove all those substances which
are _now_ found to be fatal to the coining of certain bullion. The
appointment of officers possessing such ability would be an equal
guarantee with the present for the faithful preservation of the
integrity of the coinage. This suggestion has been adopted and
recommended—so far as regards the resident assayers—by Messrs. C. W.
Fremantle and C. Rivers Wilson, in their “Reports on the Mint,” 1870.
Indeed two assistant assayers have been recently appointed.

When the assay reports arrive, the Master determines whether the metal
has been found within the limits, and if he be satisfied he writes on
the assay reports “Passed,” and signs the reports. The Deputy-Master
retains the reports as his warrant, and then issues his order for the
delivery of the bars by the melter to the rolling room, as recommended
in my report dated 29th January, 1859; but, as the accounts are kept by
weight, every set of bars is weighed by the officer who receives them
into that room before he gives them to his men to work into fillets.

When, in 1856, I took charge of some departments in the Royal Mint,
I found that the system of weighing was extremely loose. Officers
were plainly told that if they ventured to satisfy themselves as to
the weight of bullion they had received—in fact, to determine whether
they received what was charged to them—“they would be paid out.” This
state of things led men to accept _any_ weight. But I objected and
resisted; for I found that the average on each day’s work as received
amounted to an habitual minus of five ounces on the weight charged
on silver, while on gold it was seldom so little as one ounce. In
illustration I will state one case which occurred. I delivered 7920·00
ounces of gold to the Mint Office. When that gold was received,
the official weigher gave me credit for 7918·15 ounces, which was
a deduction of no less than 1·85 ounces. I appealed to the Master,
who by written order directed the gold, the weight of which was thus
disputed, to be weighed by Mr. Pilcher, the officer of the weighing
room, in the presence of witnesses whom the Master nominated. Mr.
Pilcher complied with this order, and gave a certificate, signed by
the deputed witnesses, in which he stated that the gold under dispute
weighed 7919·98 ounces—that is, that it differed in weight as charged
by me to the Mint Office 9·60 grains instead of 888·00 grains, the
difference which the official weigher had deducted from the bullion
I had delivered to him. The custom had been to weigh silver to 0·50
ounce, and gold to a pennyweight; but I introduced the system of
weighing silver to 0·10 ounce, and gold to 0·01 ounce, and at the same
time induced the Master to order new balances of superior construction
for the coining department, and one specially devised by Mr. James M.
Napier for use in the Mint Office. Of this balance, received after
having been ordered for some years, it will be sufficient to say that
it appears to be extremely accurate when properly used, and is then
capable of great results; but, unfortunately, the system is such that
those who are admittedly unfit may be promoted to important posts, just
because they are senior, and not because of superior fitness for the
work. This fine balance, therefore, becomes equal to a good rifle in
the hands of a bad marksman. Great accuracy having been enforced, the
weighing is now improved, but is still far from perfect, because the
officers are compelled to abide by the decision of the weigher at the
Mint Office, who, as beforesaid, may be unfit for his office, while
the officers themselves are debarred from all checks, by the removal
from the coining department of the set of standard weights, which were
bought on purpose that those gentlemen might check their own weights as
to accuracy. The Master’s order for the removal of these weights was in
the following terms:—

[Footnote 16: See pages 81-82.]

    “The standard weights hitherto kept in the weighing room
    are permanently transferred to the Mint Office. A new set
    of standard weights to be made for the Mint Office. The
    coining department weights to be examined by Mr. ——
    ——, and compared with those in the Mint Office (after
    these have been corrected), and reported on by him. Such
    examinations to be repeated every six weeks.”

It should be observed that this order was preceded by one written on
the 2nd February, 1865, which directed that the Mint Office weigher
should be the final judge, but that any officer might demand the
re-weighing of any bullion, while the second weighing was to be final.
All appeals to pass through Mr. John Graham, the order proceeding to
direct that—

    “The final decision is not to be called in question by any
    other officer of the coining department.”

The latter determination, I was informed, was intended to apply to me
personally. Its immediate effect was a deduction of 0·25 ounce from the
first gold I delivered, and a consequent alteration of my book to that
extent by Mr. John Graham, who made a note in writing as follows:—

    “This difference (error) may be accounted for by the
    acknowledged error of three grains heavy of the Mint Office
    500 oz. weight. See Œrtling’s Report.
                                                 (Signed) “J. G.”

Such being the circumstances, I submitted; but the result could be in
one direction only, for it had long been maintained that the reported
losses were but “an hallucination,” and were, in fact, a “mere
difference of weighing.”

It is true that the weights are periodically adjusted, but there is
adjusting and adjusting. These facts have been dwelt upon because
they have a most important bearing on the subject of loss and gain by
coining, to be afterwards treated of.

Between 1856 and 1866 the old scales were removed, to make room for
the superior balances of Messrs. De Grave, Short, and Fanner, the
eminent scale-makers of St. Martin’s-le-Grand, of whose balances it
is impossible to speak too highly, and of whom it is but fair to
state that the Prize Medal was awarded to them at the International
Exhibition, 1862, for their superior workmanship in balances.

Since it is necessary for the officer in charge of any department to
ascertain the exact amount he gives to his workmen, and to satisfy
the Master that they have returned—to within the limit of the weight
of one blank of whatever denomination of coin he may be working—the
bullion which they received, it became imperative to select the best
balance; and in practice that made by Mr. S. R. Short, of the firm
above named, was found to be the most serviceable. Mr. Short has
introduced minor improvements from time to time, as experience has
dictated, but the balance about to be described, after years of wear,
determines to within one grain when charged with 1,200 ounces troy. The
mode of proving the accuracy of a balance is to weigh as usual, and
having arrived at a just determination of the weight of the matter to
be weighed, to change the weights to the pan in which the matter has
been weighed, and to place the matter in the pan previously occupied by
the weights, so that both are now made dependent from the reverse ends
of the beam; if the results be identical with the former results there
can be no doubt as to the accuracy of the beam; should there be any
variation, the balance must be adjusted by minute alterations of the
knife-edges at its ends.

Mr. Napier has made his balance after the principle of Mr. Cotton’s
balance, so that it requires no adjusting screws, but I have no
personal experience of the benefits of this omission.

[Illustration: IMPROVED BALANCE (TO WEIGH 2000 OUNCES.)

BY Mʳ. S. R. SHORT, JUNʳ.]

The balance used in the rolling room of the Royal Mint is specially
adapted for the purpose. Such a balance, as already noticed, must be
accurate, as must also all the balances used in the Mint; but this
balance requires an arrangement by which the pans can be released
from the beam and held firmly while being loaded. Mr. S. R. Short has
been peculiarly happy in effecting this object, as will be seen by
reference to the steel engraving, which exhibits a fine illustration
of Mr. Short’s balance. The raising of the handle A causes the partial
revolution of the cam B—represented by dotted lines—and this, as it
diminishes, releases the lever C, which, by the rods D acting on the
point E, permits the approach of the joints on the rods F towards the
centre. The rods F work on a centre fixed beneath the table on which
the balance stands, so that the closing of their one end causes the
opening of the other. Thus the claws G recede from the wedges H, upon
which they had been fastened, and so release the pan, for the claws act
simply as a man’s hand would act in fixing the pan while it is being
loaded. Immediately upon the opening of the claws another action takes
place by the continued movement of the handle A, which causes the cam
I to rotate upon the friction roller J, affixed to a lever proceeding
from the shaft K, which at L is cut with eccentric bearings, so that
by the partial revolution of K, caused by the pressure of I upon J,
the series of supports M sink downwards from the pans N, thus obliging
the pans, with the rods which support them, to be suspended from the
supports S, which rest on the frame R. So soon as the pans are thus
suspended, the continued motion of the handle A causes the cam O to
permit the falling of the lever P, which at Q supports upon a friction
roller the iron framework R. This framework terminates upwards at the
points near S in sugar-loaf cones of gun-metal, which are intended
to relieve the knife-edges of the beam from the pressure of their
planes while the beam T is out of use, or while it is being loaded,
for at these times the knife-edges would become seriously damaged.
By the lowering of the frame R the centre knife-edge U is permitted
to rest on its plane of steel _c_, which is beautifully bedded on an
arch of gun-metal, as will be seen if the enlarged representation of
this part, and which is shown to the right, be examined. In fact, the
steel plane _c_ is secured by wedges exactly shaped to it, but for the
sake of illustration these wedges have been replaced in the enlarged
portion of the engraving by upright pillars shown against _c_, with
screws travelling through them, and intended to fix _c_ rigidly in a
given position. At the same instant that U comes into rest upon _c_,
the knife-edges V at the ends of the beam T receive the planes W, so
that the beam has now to support the weight of the matter placed in
the scale-pans, and at this time is determined the actual weight of
whatever that matter may be. The weigher, by an indicator suspended
from the beam at X, reads the oscillations of the beam on an ivory
plate at Y. At the time of weighing, the beam with its dependents
is carried by the four-legged frame of iron _b_. The frame R passes
through friction rollers of brass at _d_, which rollers maintain it in
its relative position to the beam. The weighing having been determined,
the handle A is reversed, and the beam is placed at rest; but the
vibration of the machinery in the rolling room causes a continuous
chatter of the knife-edges V against the planes W, therefore at each
end of the beam a small screw Z is made just to touch the lower edge of
the beam when it is at rest. Final adjustments which are very minute
may be arranged by _f_; while the box _e_ on the pan against G is
intended to receive small pieces of lead, which are used to compensate
for the loss by the wearing of the pans. The shaft K is supported from
the table by _a_. The beam of the balance represented in the steel
engraving measures 48·00 inches from knife-edge to knife-edge; that
is to say, it measures 24·00 inches from the centre knife-edge to the
knife-edge at either end. Mr. S. R. Short has made for the rolling
room another balance for weighing silver, and as it differs in some
important details, it is deemed wise to demonstrate those alterations
in Fig. 3, where the supporting frame R will be seen to carry three
upright pillars S¹, S², S³. The pillars S¹ and S³ are represented as
being placed on the farther side of the beam, which at those parts
is broken away, that the pieces of steel against which the pillars
are made to touch may be seen. S² touches against one of these pieces
of steel near the centre knife-edge U, and in front of the beam. The
pillar S² terminates in a point, which passes into an inverted cone,
while the point of S³ is made to pass into an inverted =V=, so that
when the beam is raised by these pillars from its centre knife-edge, S²
obliges it to take a specific position with regard to its distance from
the centre of the plane on which its centre knife-edge rests, and S³
causes it to take a perfectly parallel line. S¹ is simply a plane which
rises against a plane and steadies the other end of the beam, which by
this arrangement stands as on a tripod, and is, therefore, prevented
from moving, and in addition has its knife-edge invariably placed upon
the same part of the plane at each time of weighing, while the frame R,
by its continued lowering, drops the planes with equal accuracy on the
end knife-edges V.

[Illustration: Fig 3.—Short’s Plan for Levelling a Beam.]

[Illustration: Fig. 4.—Breaking-down Mill.]

The sovereign bars having been weighed by the officer, and given by
him to his men, are wrought in sets of twenty; each set is called
a _batch_, and each bar in the batch undergoes precisely the same
process. The bar is passed into the opening A of the breaking-down
mill Fig. 4, where it receives a considerable compression, for the
rollers B, seizing its end, drag it forward, while they roll back and
retard the progress of that part of the bar which is not between them.
The result is that the bar is lengthened, but not widened materially,
so that length is gained at the expense of the thickness, which is
regulated by the distance between the rollers. The rollers are driven
by shafts and adjusting couplings C, which are themselves driven by the
wheels D. The distance between the rollers is determined by the action
of the lever E′, which, by the endless wheels on its axle at E fitting
into geared wheels, gives motion to powerful screws shown at F, which
terminate in cups on the upper part of the upper brasses of the rollers
B, as may be seen at G. The upper brasses are kept always against the
ends of the screws by weights which are beneath the mill, but from
which levers and rods terminate at the lower part of the upper brasses,
at about the position indicated by I, so that the upper roller has
motion either upwards or downwards at pleasure, but the motion upwards
is arrested by the powerful screws F, and this point once determined
by the reading of the scale H, is fixed by the clamp J. The thickness,
therefore, of each bar in a batch is determined within certain limits;
and when each bar in the batch has been rolled, the mill is altered,
refixed, and again the rolling goes on till each bar has passed seven
times at varying pinches through these rollers. Owing to the wear
of the moulds in which the bars are cast—and which is largely due
to the presence of minute portions of antimony in the gold—the bars
are never of uniform thickness; hence bars of every denomination are
passed through the rollers on their edge, so as to reduce them to one
uniform thickness, otherwise the fillets resulting would be ragged,
and of unequal widths, which defect would cause them to produce blanks
out of _remedy_[17] as to weight. The rollers are set face to face;
the graduated scale H is then fixed at zero; if now the rollers are
separated until there be a space of 1·00 inch between them, the scale H
will indicate 50; if, however, it be desired to read a higher figure,
part of another revolution must be performed, causing the scale to
read, say 31·50 of that revolution, when the rollers will be so far
apart that sovereign bars which pass between them will, allowing for
the expansion after compression, be found to be exactly 1·375 inches
wide.

[Footnote 17: See p. 39.]

If now these bars be rolled on their sides, the mill must be turned
down till the scale reads 45, when, if the bars be passed through, they
will measure as under for width and thickness at each successive pinch.
A _spring-pinch_ means the passing the bar once more through the mill
without altering the distance between the rollers.

    A sovereign bar passed        Becomes a fillet or ribbon—
    through the rolling mill—    Inches wide.   Inches thick.
    At 45·00                      1·450          0·775
    ”  35·00                      1·540          0·610
    ”  26·00                      1·610          0·460
    ”  19·00                      1·665          0·335
    ”  14·00                      1·696          0·250
    ”  10·50                      1·712          0·194
    ”   8·50                      1·765          0·148
    ”   7·00                      1·778          0·129
    ”   1st spring-pinch.         1·778          0·127
    ”   2nd   ”      ”            1·778          0·120
    ”   3rd   ”      ”            1·779          0·118
    ”   4th   ”      ”            1·781          0·117

When the bars have passed through the rollers at 10·50 they have become
of great hardness, and of considerable length, say 6 or 8 feet. They
are then taken to the shears K, where their hollow ends are cut off,
and the bars cut into lengths of 18 inches; or rather, such was the
practice when it was considered wise to obtain as much coined money as
was possible from the bars; but recently, under other considerations,
the old plan of the moneyers has been re-introduced, that of shearing
the hollow ends from the bars before rolling. In this process there
is needless waste, and it is to be hoped that the proper practice
will be reverted to, for under that system the ends averaged 4·26 per
cent., while under the re-introduced one it amounts to 7·03[18] per
cent. on the bars, and for the following reason. When the metal is
poured into the moulds, it almost immediately solidifies, and while
solidification is going on contracts in volume, leaving a kind of cup
of metal or hollow part on the top of the bar. In the act of rolling,
the bar maintains an equable width until this hollow part is reached,
when it suddenly expands, and at this point the workman shears off
the defective part of the bar, whereas in the other case he shears
off the hollow end until his eye fails to discover the effects of the
shrinkage; hence the loss of 2·77 per cent. on the produce of fillets,
as well as the loss in wages for melting the bars. The shears may be
regarded as large scissors driven by a drum on the same shaft that
carries the driving wheel for D. The drum is eccentric, so that at each
revolution the shears are caused to open and shut. The bar being placed
between the jaws K, the long end L of the shears is raised by the drum,
and the piece is cut off. The shears may be closed and the end of L
suspended, when out of use, by a hook on the end of the screw worked by
the lever M. The length at which a bar is to be cut off is regulated by
the gauge shown at N.

[Footnote 18: See page 112.]

[Illustration: Fig. 5.—Annealing Furnace.]

The sheared bars are placed in copper tubes, the tops of which are
luted on with clay. It is imperative that the copper tubes should be
made without solder, because this fuses at a temperature below that
which is required to anneal the gold; if present it would run down
upon the hot gold, and cause it to fuse and alloy with the solder,
thus spoiling the work and entailing expense upon the coiner. The
tubes which are used in the Royal Mint are made by Messrs. Benhams
and Froud, of Chandos Street, Strand, who, after considerable pains,
arrived at a method of making the tubes in such a manner as to entirely
satisfy the requirements of the Mint. The tubes A are placed on an
iron carriage B, which is then run into the furnace, as shown in Fig.
5. The door of the furnace C is closed by raising the counterpoise D;
the heat of the furnace is regulated by the damper E. The apron F is
sometimes of use in annealing very long silver bars. After remaining
in this furnace for twenty minutes, the carriage is withdrawn, and
the tubes, taken with tongs, are plunged into cold water, to cool the
gold as rapidly as possible. The rapid cooling of gold and silver
gives to each metal a peculiar character, which is of value in the
after processes, and prevents the access of the atmosphere, which, in
prolonged cooling, would cause the oxidation and consequent removal of
so much copper that the alloyed metal would become too rich in gold
for circulation as coin. The annealing of some metals is effected not
so much by the continued heat as by the slow cooling; it is therefore
wise to raise the metal to its full heat as rapidly as possible, and
then so to arrange matters that it may cool very slowly. This method
does not hold good in the case of the precious metals and of copper,
for they become, under such treatment, so soft, malleable, and pasty
as to stick to the machinery, and thus to cause considerable trouble
and loss. After annealing, the bars, which are now called _fillets_,
go again to the breaking-down mill, through which they are passed with
the scale indicating 8·50, then at 7·00, and after this are submitted
to another pinch without altering the scale at all; so that what is
called a _spring-pinch_ is given, with the intention of effecting the
reduction of the fillet to one uniform thickness, for the breaking
down and subsequent rolling cause the fillets to become much thicker
in their middle than at their sides. The spring-pinches reduce this,
while at the same time they diminish the elasticity of the metal, and
fit it for the other mills. It will be seen, by reference to the above
table, that the widening of the fillet is very trifling; but width may
be gained to any desired extent, at the will of the workman, if the
bars be submitted to a heavy pinch instead of a series of light ones.
The fillet having been submitted to the fourth spring-pinch, is gauged
on its side by a steel instrument, of which Fig. 6 is a representation.
It is a hollow wedge, which is graduated to the thousandth of an inch.
Supposing that the opening from A to B were extended until it were
one inch wide at A, the space would be divided between it and B into
1,000 parts, and then every fillet passed into this opening would stop
at a given point, say, for instance, at 140; such being the case,
every part of the same fillet should be arrested precisely at the same
point. The fillets are reduced till they measure 117 on this gauge,
and are consequently 0·117 inches thick. They are then passed to the
next mill, where they receive four light pinches, and then to a third
mill, where they receive two more very light pinches, and by means of
these six pinches are reduced in thickness to 0·075 inches. They then
pass to another mill, still finer than any of the preceding, and here
are submitted to four very light pinches, by which they are reduced to
0·058 inches, and are finally finished at the sixth or gauging mill,
where they receive three pinches, and are then 0·053 inches thick by
1·829 wide.

[Illustration: Fig. 6.—Small Gauge.]

[Illustration: Fig. 7.—Gauging Mill.]

[Illustration: Fig. 8.—Ansell’s Standard Gauge.]

The gauging mill is of different construction from the other mills, as
may be seen by reference to Fig. 7, where the rollers A are seen in the
act of reducing a fillet. The upper roller is fixed in brasses loosely
clamped together; the upper brass, B, being firmly bolted to the main
frame of the mill by the screws _c_, while the lower one C, which
carries the weight of the roller when it is running empty, is supported
by spiral springs shown at D. The lower roller works on a brass, E,
which rests on a wedge shown at F; the brass being cut to fit the
wedge, so that it may become similar to a solid mass, irrespective of
any motion given to the wedge. By this mode of adjusting, a difference
of the 0·001 of an inch may be made with ease between the distance
of the rollers, and, consequently, in the thickness of fillets which
may pass between them. The wedge F is moved forward and backward by
the screw G, which itself has motion from the gear work H, by the
handle I. Directly a fillet is passed between the rollers, the topmost
one is forced against its upper brasses, and further upward motion
becomes impossible. The weight of metal in this roller gives rise to
irregularities in the thickness of the fillets which pass from this
mill, causing much trouble and some expense; therefore it is proposed
to support the upper roller by a similar arrangement to that which
affects the lower roller, and to keep it rigidly against the upper
brass, but with just so much pressure as its own weight would induce
were circumstances reversed, and by these means to relieve the fillet
from the weight of the roller, because that has an undue influence on
each end of it. The gauger of fillets requires other tests besides that
of the thickness of the edge of the fillet, so he punches out a blank
from an occasional fillet by a hand-press, the cutter of which is shown
at J, Fig. 7, worked by the handle K, through the screw L. The blank
falling through the bolster of the cutter is caught at M, and is then
weighed in the hand scales N, against a standard weight, from which it
must not vary more than 0·50 grain. O, Fig. 7, is the gauge actually
used by the workman; Fig. 6 represents the standard gauge used only
by the officer in charge to check the work at its various stages. He
has in addition a gauge of great accuracy, by which to measure the
fillets at any point, as to width and thickness. This gauge will be
more intelligible by reference to Fig. 8. A is the handle, which is
hollow; B is a lever attached to the flat rod of copper C, which at D
is cut with a rack, into which a pinion E is made to work. The pinion
E works on a shaft, the upper end of which carries a hand F, provided
with a vernier G. If now the handle A be firmly held by the hand,
while the thumb be made to press the lever B towards the end of the
handle, the rod C is set in motion, and causes the hand G to travel in
the direction of H. The rod C rests on another rod I, made of steel,
and so long as to pass into the handle of the instrument. The ends of
the rods C and I are fitted at _b_ with steel shoulders, and are then
continued, as represented, to _a_. If it be desired to measure the
thickness of a fillet, the points _a a_ and _b b_ are caused to open by
pressure applied to B, and the fillet is placed between the points _a_,
when a spring fixed in the box K brings back the rod C as soon as B is
gently released, and encloses the fillet. The separation of the points
_a_ by the fillet causes the hand or indicator G to stand at a point
from zero, which is then read. The scale is divided into 500 parts;
and if the points be opened 0·50 inch, the hand makes one revolution;
so that the ·001 of an inch is gained by one reading. But each 0·001
is subdivided by the vernier into ten, so that a ten-thousandth part
of an inch is read without trouble. To measure the diameter of a blank
coin, or the width of a fillet, it must be placed between the points
_b_; but since the extreme graduation of this gauge is 0·50 inch,
it is necessary, if it be desired to measure a larger diameter, to
press back the lever B till the zero of the vernier G reaches 0·500
on the scale H, and hold it there while a clamp is made fast at the
spot indicated by the star (*), to prevent the motion of C without I.
When the clamp is fixed the rod I must be drawn out till the zero of
the vernier reaches that of the scale H, when the screws J must be
tightened to retain I in its new position, with half an inch permanent
opening between the points _b_ and between the points _a_. In a new
measurement, that permanent 0·500 must be added to the reading. This
arrangement admits of measuring up to 3·5000 inches, to which limit the
gauge is extremely accurate. The instrument was invented by myself,
because I found it difficult to convince the men that the fillet was
thickest in its middle, and consequently heavier there than it should
be; and, unfortunately, that the workmen habituated themselves to
attributing this fault to each other, when its existence was proved.
The fact was, that under the system which had prevailed, the men—with
a view to make bad work for a specially-designed reason—would set the
upper rollers at varying angles, so that a fillet at one mill would
have one thin and one thick edge; and when that fillet passed through
the next mill, the angle of the roller being altered, would make both
edges alike, but the effect of the manœuvre was to push the metal into
the middle of the fillet, and thus to unfit it for the draw-bench.
Hence the necessity to fix where the blame should rest, and the
production of this instrument, under my direction, by Mr. C. Becker, of
30, Strand, at once overcame all those difficulties.

[Illustration: Fig. 9.—Small Shears.]

[Illustration: Fig. 10.—Flatting Mill.]

The fillets are weighed from the rolling room to the drag room, where
they are finally adjusted; for with every energy, discretion, and
skill, FILLETS CANNOT BE OBTAINED OF UNIFORM THICKNESS BY SIMPLE
ROLLING. In the drag room the fillets are taken to the small shears,
Fig. 9, by which one end of each fillet is trimmed so as to render it
square. The plates A are fixed to the head of a T-shaped lever, which
is caused to oscillate by a cam beneath the floor. The plates A shut
against a face of steel fixed to a block, and held by the screws shown
at B; if therefore the end of the fillet be passed between the plate A
and the face of B, each oscillation causes the cutting off of so much
as protrudes, the pieces cut off falling into the box C, which has now
been enlarged so far as to form a pan all round the top with a view
to catch all of them. D forms part of a chain, by which the shears
are thrown out of motion. The fillets, having been trimmed so as to
render their ends square, are next passed to the extent of about two
inches between the rollers of a flatting mill, shown in Fig. 10, which
reduce that part of the fillet to about two-thirds its thickness. A
A represent a pair of small rollers, the upper one of which is cut
with three flat faces, so that it has three rounding and three flat
surfaces; hence, when both rollers are revolving, there are spaces with
openings between them; but when the rounding faces come down, those
openings are much narrowed, so that any fillet placed between them
becomes thinned to just such an extent as may be deemed necessary. The
rollers travel in opposite directions, so as to cause the expulsion
of a fillet placed between them. The reverse motion is gained as
follows:—The upper roller is driven by B, which receives its motion
from the little pinion C, carried on the shaft which also supports D.
D reverses the motion of E, which is driven from the drum F. E also
drives G, which gives motion to the lower roller. The fly-wheel H
is borne at the extreme end of the shaft which carries F and E. The
fillets are rested on J while being _flatted_, and are, after flatting,
placed in the trough K, from which they are taken to a rolling mill in
the drag room, of precisely the same construction as that exhibited at
Fig. 7, to be passed twice through at equal pinches, with a view to
render them still more accurate than they were when leaving the rolling
room, as well as to reduce them to the exact thickness at which the
trier has found they will produce the best work at the draw-bench. The
rolling mill in the drag room was provided with steel rollers. Steel
rollers are of somewhat recent invention, and seem to have received
a high character from those whose opinion may be modified by further
experiments more accurately made. My opinion, founded on experience,
is to the effect that they are not worth their extra cost; but that
their usefulness may be more fully developed when they shall have been
fitted with the arrangements proposed for the gauging mills before
explained.[19] After these alterations have been made, it may fairly
be questioned whether steel rollers will, under circumstances every
way similar, produce better work than is produced by the ordinary
chilled-iron rollers; in other words, I believe that steel is not a
better substance for rollers than chilled cast-iron. Those who have to
sell, and those who have to use, have, of course, different motives;
he who has to use a machine should judge calmly, and not be led away
because the invention is new. It is amongst these considerations that
I am convinced that steel rollers do not save money; for if they wear
longer without getting out of order, they also require a longer time
to put them again in order. Rollers, made from whatsoever substance,
cannot reasonably be expected to produce a fillet from every part of
which blanks of equal weight can be struck, because it is not yet
possible to produce a compound of equal hardness throughout; but if the
construction of the mill be altered, steel rollers may approach nearer
to that perfection which is gained by the draw-bench, but they can
never replace it. The fillets are taken from the mill to the draw-bench.

[Footnote 19: See page 23.]

[Illustration: Fig. 11.—Draw-bench.]

[Illustration: Fig. 12.—Head of Draw-bench.]

Fig. 11 represents the _draw-bench_, the name of which is retained,
as being in fact its only appropriate one. The _flatted_ end of each
fillet is passed into the opening shown at A. The _dog_ A´ is then
run up till its teeth seize the fillet. The lever is depressed until
one of the hooks O catches a bar of the circulating chain P, which
in its onward motion drags the dog, and causes it to bite the fillet
and _draw_ it through the opening at which it has been entered. P
gets its motion from a notched cam, the axle of which is shown at Q.
There are two distinct chains to each draw-bench, and there are two
distinct draw-benches, so that one description does for both double
ones. R is a cogged wheel, the shaft of which, Q, carries two notched
drums, and each drum gives motion to a chain, so that both chains
travel at the same pace. R is set in motion by the pinion S, on the
shaft which is driven by the wheel T. T is driven by U, which is on
the shaft driven by the strap and drums V. Fig. 12 is a representation
of the head of the draw-bench, and in studying this engraving it will
be well to refer at the same time to Fig. 11. The dog takes its name
from its resemblance to the head of a bull-dog. It consists of a pair
of levers, whose long arms extend beyond the axle-tree of the wheels
nearest to O, and whose shortest arms are formed by the passing of the
other axle-tree through the lever. The teeth are set at the front of
the short arms. The axle-tree near O is fixed to the bars forming O,
and runs loosely between the long arms of the lever, so that when O is
pulled forcibly it causes the axle-tree to open the long end of the
levers, and thereby to close the short end or teeth of the dog, the
more rigidly in proportion to the pressure exerted at O. Directly the
fillet has passed through the cylinders the dog springs slightly by the
elasticity of the fillet, and thus releases itself from the chain; at
the instant of release the weight over the foremost wheels falls, and
by its fall lifts the hooks O so high as to admit of their escaping
contact with the circulating chain P. The position of the teeth of
the dog is shown by A in Fig. 12. The flatted part of the fillet is
just so thin as to admit of its passing easily between the cylinders
B until seized by A, but the part which is not thinned comes against
the cylinders B, and requires considerable force to drag it between
them. The cylinders B do not rotate; in fact, they may be considered as
forming part of a solid mass.[20] The lower cylinder is laid on the bed
C, and is clamped there by a cheek fastened on to C by three screws,
the holes for which are shown on C; the upper cylinder is fixed to
the mass D by a precisely similar arrangement. The beds C D are held
perpendicularly by the points of the screws E; and we may now view the
cylinders as secured to, and forming part of, their beds. The distance
between the cylinders is regulated by the capstans F, which separate
the beds of the cylinders, and so separate the cylinders. The accuracy
of this adjustment is all-important, because the distance between the
cylinders determines the thickness of the fillet which passes between
them. The bed D of the upper cylinder is required to be movable at
pleasure; it is therefore provided at G with four wedges, two of which,
_c c_, are cut so that if looked upon from the top a round hole shows
itself, and through this hole the end of the screw, which at this
point L is plain, and has a neck turned in it, passes, with its head
beneath the wedges and against the lower G. So soon as this is effected
the wedges A B are pressed into their places, and these holding _c c_
together, cause them to secure G by its neck; if, therefore, G be now
caused to rise, the block D must rise with it, but the head of this
screw rests on the solid block D, while its neck is just so long as
to admit of this without itself being pressed against the wedges _c
c_. G is a very fine-cut screw which fits into a female screw cut in
the frame of the head of the draw-bench; it is moved to any distance
varying from the hundred-thousandth part of an inch (0·00001) and
upwards by the wheel H, which receives a very minute motion from the
pinion I by means of a lever fitting into the capstan head J. K was
originally intended to be used to set or fix the screw G when it had
been brought to its proper position, but it is not used; for, in fact,
the cylinders wear away appreciably by the passage of the fillets, so
that they constantly require to be brought nearer together to make up
for this wear. With some species of gold the friction is so great that,
although oil is used, the cylinders become so hot as to render the
gold pasty; in such case a kind of welding takes place, which causes
the tearing of the fillet. If this extreme point be not reached, as
indeed it seldom is, the cylinders become of varying temperatures,
and so great is the effect of this, that in order to compensate for
it, the upper cylinder has to be continually raised or depressed. The
beds which carry the cylinders become worn by the strain and fret,
and require grinding out at intervals; therefore, to allow for the
difference which this would make, screws N are provided, by which the
cylinder in the lower bed can always be raised to its proper position.
We cannot but admire the ingenious productions of inventive minds;
and surely if ever there were a marvellous machine for assisting the
coiner, it is this; indeed, it may be doubted whether a more admirable
instrument for its purpose can be contrived. Sir John Barton, who
invented and directed the making of it, took into consideration every
circumstance which could possibly arise, but he never saw practically
the full advantage of his conception. Under my direction, this machine
was so used that the average work produced was very favourably compared
with the trials recorded by Sir John Barton, and details of which were
given to me by the late Mr. W. H. Barton. There are some persons who
smile at the draw-bench, but it is one of those inventions which will
outlive its detractors, at least, so long as economy and perfection
are points to be studied in coining. Foreign Mints are said to have
found no advantage in the use of the draw-bench. It is to be regretted
that they have not found a man with sufficient intelligence to use
so accurate an instrument; it is surely not the fault of the sun if
men are blind to its splendour. Mr. J. Martin, of the Paris Mint, has
recently made some very accurate experiments with the draw-bench,
and has produced results every way in accordance with those obtained
by me in the Royal Mint, and is convinced that the draw-bench may be
considered as the coiner’s right hand.

[Footnote 20: As the cylinder wears, the screws of C may be loosened
to permit the shifting of the abraded part, so that the whole
circumference of the cylinder may be used.—See also page 31.]

Against all sound advice the Master had been induced to buy a pair of
steel rollers, at a cost of £800 (I state the sum on the authority of
Mr. W. H. Barton, who, being Comptroller at the time, probably knew the
actual cost), and with these I made an elaborate series of experiments,
extending over many weeks. The results were wholly adverse to the
new rollers—others arrived at the same conclusion—and I reported to
the Master, in writing, on the facts as I found them, showing that
the average gave an advantage of 19·92 per cent. in favour of the
draw-bench, and on this ground I maintained the superiority of that
machine. He replied by a peremptory order, directing me “to prohibit
now and for ever” the “use of the draw-bench, and to take measures for
its removal from the Mint.” Thus absolved from responsibility, I—after
making a written protest—obeyed that which I could no longer withstand.
The result was that the rejected blanks, which had averaged 3·60 per
cent., now advanced to 23·52 per cent. I was unable to avoid this great
expense, and when I spoke to him about it he was not very amiably
disposed; however, he finally wrote me the following note, on which I
remarked to him “that steel rollers, whether driven by cogged wheels or
by straps, would still be steel rollers.”

    “_7th June, 1861._

    “DEAR SIR,

    “In the cutting and adjusting room you may return to the use of
    the draw-bench till the gearing of the steel rollers is altered.
    I had overlooked the circumstance that in the United States Mint
    cogged wheels are not used for that purpose.

                                    “Yours truly,
                                            “THO. GRAHAM.
    “G. F. Ansell, Esquire.”

It is satisfactory to me to find that Mr. Fremantle confirms the
opinion at which I had arrived. He says (“European Mints,” page
9):—“The adjustment of the fillets after rolling is in some European
Mints performed by the draw-bench, as in England. In others it is
performed by carefully adjusted rolling mills only. The experience
acquired both in this country and abroad tends to show that it is
advisable to retain the draw-bench—at any rate, until some more
accurate method is found of equalising the fillets and reducing them
to their correct thickness.” If Mr. Fremantle will investigate for
himself instead of being guided by the opinions of others, he will
rigidly follow the correct conclusion at which he has arrived; if,
however, he will look in the drag room in the Royal Mint, he will
discover evidence of the former existence of a series of rollers which
were replaced by the draw-bench. Yet one of his co-travellers, who is
manifestly willing to make experiments, says of the draw-bench, “Still
it has yet to be proved that it can compete in sustained accuracy
with a well-constructed rolling mill.” Quite true; but I think the
answer holds good, and any one who would replace the draw-bench by
rolling mills—which have hitherto failed—should, as Sir John Barton
did, prove his proposition otherwise than at the Government expense,
and then on success obtain fair remuneration. Before leaving the study
of this instrument it is right that I should mention that Mr. John
Murray, of the Royal Mint, has added immeasurably to the value of
it by inventing a most ingenious machine for grinding the cylinders
(see B, page 28) with accuracy, so that those cylinders which have
been used can with ease be, as it were, repaired. In justice to Mr.
Murray I should add that I omitted all mention of his invention in any
former issue, because some principal contractors were to my knowledge
intending to make him an offer of a sum of money for it, and under such
circumstances I could not think it right to give a description of it. A
like feeling induces me to postpone to another occasion details of this
clever contrivance; its simplicity is such that a mere outline would
put a maker of instruments in possession of means for its construction.

The fillets which have passed between the draw-bench cylinders are cut
into lengths of about 18 inches by the shears shown at X, in Fig. 11,
and are then sent to the trier, who by means of a hand-press similar
to, but more delicate than, that shown at Fig. 7, punches out one or
two blanks from each length of 18 inches, and weighs it, or them,
against a standard weight, and in accordance with his judgment directs
the fillets to be cut by the boys or men at the machines. The trier
allows 0·20 grain on the pound of blanks for the loss which afterwards
occurs by annealing.[21] If, however, the bars, as previously
suggested, were cast uniformly of the thickness of 0·50 inch, this
allowance, which is equal to a value of £34 8_s._ 7½_d._ on each
million, need not be made; but in fact, as will be seen, even this is
not sufficient to cover that loss under present circumstances.

[Footnote 21: See page 48.]

Not only has it become a habit to smile at the draw-bench, but every
unfair attempt has been made to get rid of it. Officers were abused
because they would not report against it, and the machine itself was
submitted to usage never contemplated by the inventor. The then chief
coiner, who had formerly seen soap used in calico works in Manchester,
insisted on using soap-suds, whereby the beds for the cylinders became
rusted, the cylinders destroyed, and the whole machine thrown out
of gear, so that 30 per cent. of all the work was rejected: these
perverse trials, extending over weeks, appeared to throw discredit on
the draw-bench. Having been a calico-printer, that officer endeavoured
to engraft on to the processes of coining some of the practices
adopted in that business; but had he duly appreciated the principle
on which the draw-bench acts, he could not have attempted the use of
soap-suds, or, at least, on its complete failure would have assented
to its disuse. The very first object of the draw-bench is to produce
just so much friction as will cause the lateral displacement of the
molecules of the metal then under its operation. Soap, when it adheres
to the bullion, permits the fillet to pass without friction, and
when it is scraped off by the cylinders the gold becomes so hot from
friction that the hand cannot with safety touch it; hence there are
alternating parts of the fillet very hot and absolutely cold, and, as
a consequence, no two blanks can be obtained of equal weight. Sir John
Barton not only made the machine, but determined also that oil was
the only fit lubricator for metal made to pass through the cylinders
of the draw-bench. Forgetful of the immediate wear on the surface of
the metal, others have attempted to replace the cylinders by wedges of
steel, so made as that a constant stream of cold water should keep them
cool when in operation. This also failed from the formation of rust,
while the work produced never equalled that obtained from cylinders.
The proper use of the draw-bench is to reduce fillets to an equable
thickness in every part, and this can only be done when the trier,
after studying the quality of his metal, has determined how much he
can remove by once passing through the cylinders; then by keeping up
a constant succession of fillets, properly smeared with oil, so that
the equable friction always maintains them at the same temperature.
Under such circumstances, and with a remedy of 0·24 grain, the rejected
should not exceed 2 per cent., and this on the whole day’s work should
contain half its weight of light and the other half heavy blanks. This
also was a curious instance of want of knowledge on the part of that
controlling officer, who for years maintained that if the work were
properly conducted _all the rejected_ should be on one side of the
remedy.[22] The fillets, notwithstanding the draw-bench, cannot be
brought to perfect accuracy, and to meet such variations as arise, a
difference is made in two of the cutting-out punches by altering their
diameters to such an extent that a blank cut by them from a standard
fillet would vary in weight from a blank cut by a standard cutter from
the same fillet. One cutting-out punch is so altered that a blank
would be 0·125 grain, and the other that a blank would be 0·250 grain
heavier. This admits of a fillet otherwise too thin being used; but if
the fillet be found to err on the other side, it is passed once more
either through the draw-bench, or through the mill at a spring-pinch.
The trier, Mr. William Fenton, is a peculiarly steady man, possessing
a calm judgment, with considerable energy, and upon him depends the
accuracy of the whole process of coining; he has not unfrequently so
managed his work that upon 5,000,000 of sovereigns coined, he has been
within one sovereign of the calculated value.

[Footnote 22: See page 39.]

The fillets, having been thrown by the trier into the receptacles which
indicate the particular cutting-out punches to which they are to be
taken, are fetched by a man, who wipes off the oil, and then carries
them to the cutting-out room, where the fillets are cut into blanks
and scissel. In this place it may farther be noticed that soap-suds
cannot be used in the place of oil, because the soap could not be
removed without washing,—a practical impossibility,—and would therefore
remain, and add indefinitely to the weight of the gold, and thus open
the door for peculation. The cutting-out presses used in the Royal Mint
are very cumbersome, and when in operation are terribly noisy: it is
therefore hoped that at no distant period they may be replaced by some
of a far more simple construction; but it is believed that under all
circumstances it will be found wise to adhere to the plan of cutting
out a single blank at each descent of the punch.[23] For bronze it
is well to obtain five or more blanks at each blow, but the limited
variation of weight allowed by law on blanks of the precious metals
would render this false economy. Fig. 13 represents one of the twelve
cutting-out presses, which are all driven by the wheel A, provided
with a series of cams on its outer rim; one of these cams, B, is in
the act of striking the friction roller C, which is attached to, and
forms part of, the lever D. D is fixed to an upright shaft E, which
at F is cut with a screw thread working into a female screw fitted
into the main shoulder of the press at G. If now the cam B strikes
C, and throws it outwards, it causes the shaft E to take a part of a
revolution, and in so doing the screw F makes it rise and carry with
it the block H, whose tendency to circular motion is prevented by a
plug fitting into its groove, and fixed in the guide I. The lower end
of H carries the screwed cap J, which supports the cutting-out punch,
so that when E rises it carries the cutting-out punch through just the
same distance that itself travels upwards. The cutting-out punch is
now ready for action, and is released by the continued revolution of
the wheel A, as will be seen by the figure; but as it could not fall
with sufficient force of itself, assistance is rendered by the pressure
of the atmosphere, as will be seen by the following arrangement. The
lever D is provided, near its junction at E, with a loop of iron
travelling on a screw, so that it may be moved farther from, or nearer
to, the centre of action, and thus admit of the increase of power.
This loop of iron is represented by K, and is continued by a rod of
iron across the upper part of the room and through a hole in the wall
to a system of levers L, from which a rod is suspended, the lower end
being connected with a piston working in the chamber M. The chamber M
is an hermetically-closed vessel secured to a stone firmly fixed in the
floor. The piston works in this chamber, and is covered with about two
inches of oil, which prevents the access of the atmosphere by leaks to
any part beneath the piston. If the piston, therefore, be raised from
the base of the chamber, a vacuum is produced in that portion from
which the piston is removed, and consequently the atmosphere presses
on the surface of the oil, which in its turn presses on the piston,
and carries it down (the reverse of the action explained by Mr. James
Napier in “European Mints”); in its fall the piston pulls down the
cutter, which has been raised; for the same blow which raises the
cutter also raises this piston; therefore, when the cutter is raised
the workman places the fillet N, from which blanks are to be cut, on
the bolster, shown at O, and holds it firmly while the cutter descends
and punches out a blank, which falls through the bolster into the
drawer P. By the time that the down stroke of the cutting-out punch is
complete, the wedge Q has entered a slit in the spring R, and strikes
the spring, thus throwing the machine back, and preparing it to start
when the cam B shall strike the friction roller C. The point at which
Q may strike R is determined by a screw near the left-hand T. The
upright shaft E, which is partly hollow, terminates at a flat cogged
wheel, and the upper part of F is made to pass into E; while at S is
an arrangement which serves to detach or connect these pieces, that
the cutter may upon occasion be used by the hand by means of the lever
T, as well as to admit of the necessary alterations, as the punches,
by regrinding, become shorter. The cutting-out punch, when it rises,
carries with it the fillet from which the blank has been punched, until
the fillet comes against the guard W, which detaches it.

[Footnote 23: See p. 169.]

[Illustration: Fig. 13.—Cutting-out Press.]

The fillets from which the blanks have been punched have the appearance
of ribbons perforated with round holes, and are now called _scissel_
(from the Latin _scindo_, to cut). These are thrown into a tray, U,
from which they are taken at intervals, and bound up by strips of the
same into bundles of 180 ounces—in the case of silver 360 ounces—ready
for re-melting. The cutting-out press is set at liberty to start by
the workman pressing his foot on a lever in connection with the line
and spring indicated by V; and so long as he keeps this lever down,
the press is worked continuously, but when he releases it the spring
catches the extreme end of D, and motion is arrested. The blanks
which accumulate in the box P are collected at frequent intervals and
examined, to see that their edges are smooth; if they be ragged, as
may happen from the wear or fracture of the edge of either the cutter
or bolster, a loss would be entailed in after processes which would
cause the coin to be outside the prescribed limit, and to pass at an
illegal weight into circulation, as the rough edges would be removed
after the weighing of the blanks had been effected. According to
the quality of the work—the character of the gold—under operation,
the trier tests more or less frequently the variations of weight in
a given number of blanks. This process is called POUNDING, and is,
next to the _trying_, the most important of his duties; if such an
expression can be admitted, he has, by _trying_, fired his shot, and
here determines if he has hit the bull’s-eye, all depending on his
own unaided judgment. The gauge, Fig. 8, is found of great service in
detecting irregularities as to diameter and thickness, which would not
be, and are not, detected by weight, for the weight may remain equal,
although both diameter and thickness may vary. All these points require
considerable care on the part of those whose duty it is to attend to
them; for the quality of a coinage is determined in this room: blanks
which once leave it cannot be afterwards altered. The subsequent
operations, being purely mechanical, would be quite as well performed
by automaton machines.

The completing processes form undoubtedly the prettiest and most
interesting part of the operation of coining; nevertheless the
processes already described constitute its most essential features.
The blanks are weighed from this room in drafts of about 720 ounces,
and placed in bags; each bag, therefore, contains four _journeys_ of
about 180 ounces each. The term _journey_ is said to be derived from
an old French word, but circumstances render it probable that this
derivation has been applied by others than the original inventor of
the word, for it manifestly was not used by the coiner of it to imply
a “day’s work.” I cannot find an author who gives a time at which 720
ounces of silver became a journey, while 180 ounces of gold were also
called by the same name. It must have taken far longer to coin 720
ounces of shillings or groats than to coin 180 ounces of sovereigns or
half-sovereigns; hence the same word could never have been intended to
mean “a day’s work.” Be this as it may, it is time that such names gave
place to more appropriate and expressive terms. It is to be hoped that
500 ounces will become the standard maximum weight for bags of either
of the precious metals; such a system would be the means of reducing
the chance of error, it would have an actual meaning, and would be a
convenient weight for a man to lift to and from a scale-pan. When such
a measure shall be convenient to the officers of the Bank of England,
that institution will subserve the interests of the Mint by adopting it.

In a paper recently published by the Commissioners on the International
Coinage (at page 228) it is stated that “in the British Mint 15 pounds
troy of standard gold are coined into 701 sovereigns nearly (15 lbs. =
£700 17_s._ 6_d._).” This statement does not exactly convey the truth,
and is calculated to mislead, because such an operation is not, and
never has been, conducted in the British Mint, where the invariable
rule is to abide rigidly by the law, and to coin 20 pounds troy weight
of standard gold into 934·50 sovereigns, as specified in the Mint
Indenture, now replaced by the Act of Parliament, 33 Vict., cap. 10.
Of these sovereigns so coined, 701 are placed in a bag, and called a
_journey_; but by a Mint fiction the journey was considered by the
old moneyers, and yet more ancient weigher and teller, 15 pounds troy
exact, because the parts of an ounce were difficult of addition; and
this was maintained until 1860, when a disputed weight with the Bank of
England as to the value of the deliveries corrected that which I had
previously pointed out as an error. It is now the custom to consider
a journey as consisting of 180·03125 ounces, instead of, as it is,
180·03210 ounces, an error of ·00085, which has a money value of about
6_s._ 7½_d._ on each delivery to the Bank.

[Illustration: COTTON’S PATENT AUTOMATON BALANCE.

WITH PILCHER’S IMPROVEMENTS.]

The bags of blanks should[24] be carried forward to the room in which
the weighing of the individual blanks is effected by Mr. Cotton’s
automaton weighing machines. Mr. Cotton’s weighing machines form
perhaps the most elegant and clever invention of modern times. They
effect the process of weighing far more accurately than man can hope
to do, and with extraordinary accuracy determine the weight of about
twenty-three blanks per minute. Peculiarly admirable as are these
machines, their perfection has been greatly increased by improvements
suggested by Mr. Richard Pilcher, who has immediate charge of those in
the Royal Mint. Mr. Pilcher, whose inventive genius is only equalled
by his desire to give to the public the benefit of his inventions,
has rendered these automaton balances serviceable to the Mint;
whereas, when they left the hand of Mr. William Cotton, they were
of great service to the Bank of England alone, for there only two
determinations, or in fact one determination is necessary. In that
institution it is required to show that the coins issued by it are not
below the legal weight for circulation, whereas the Mint must guarantee
that coins leave its works neither above nor below the limits fixed
by law: hence the necessity for the incorporation of Mr. Pilcher’s
improvements with Mr. Cotton’s beautiful invention.

[Footnote 24: See pages 42-44.]

After reading the letter of Mr. James M. Napier in the _Times_ of
September 2nd, 1869, I can but express my surprise that that gentleman
has not seen fit to acknowledge Mr. Pilcher’s modifications instead
of claiming for himself all the credit, when a part only—and that
undoubtedly an important one—is his due.

The steel engraving exhibits a view of COTTON’S automaton machine as
used in the Royal Mint, where seventeen such machines are employed.
For the purpose of illustration, the brass side of the machine has, in
imagination, been torn away, as also has the top of the machine. To
obtain the highly-finished drawing from which this engraving was made
was a matter of no ordinary difficulty, but it was accomplished by the
skill and assiduity of Mr. E. S. Gibson, to whom my thanks are due, as
well as to Mr. J. W. Lowry, for the pains he has bestowed in executing
the engraving.

The whole theory of this balance rests on the fact that the centre
of gravity and the centre of action are in one line: either being
disturbed, the balance is no longer equal. The machine gains its
motion from a shaft fixed to the ceiling of the room. Steam contained
in a boiler exists under an ever-varying pressure, arising from the
amount of work which it may be necessary for the engine to perform,
or from the irregular combustion of the fuel, as well as from other
causes. Since it is of the utmost importance that the automaton balance
should be made to maintain a uniform pace, Messrs. Napier and Sons
found it necessary to drive the shaft which gives it motion by a
small atmospheric engine, which is placed in the weighing room. It
has been found that a chamber may be kept equably exhausted of air,
if the atmosphere be admitted to it by a uniformly weighted valve.
Such a chamber—to be described presently—is used in the Mint for other
purposes, and Messrs. Napier conducted from this a pipe, by the agency
of which the atmospheric engine is worked with a far more even and
steady motion than could be obtained by steam; in fact, the exhausted
chamber becomes a regulated spring, which softens down the variations
in the motion of the steam-engine. The shaft supported by the ceiling
conveys its motion to the weighing machine by a line A, which, passing
over the friction wheels B, circulates round the stepped wheel C,
which runs loose on the shaft communicating with E. The line A is
maintained with sufficient rigidity by a weight D, which is suspended
at the end of the lever carrying the friction wheels B. The weight D
is just sufficient to insure the continuous working of the machine,
but is so light as to permit the line A to slip on C in the event of
anything going wrong in the works of the balance. When the machine
is to be set in motion, a kind of cheek is made—by screwing—to touch
the face of the wheel C, and thus, by friction, C gives motion to the
wheel E. This is an elegant mode of meeting a chance of accident, for
in the event of the weight D proving to be too heavy, any extra force
simply disconnects this cheek from the face of C, and so stops the
machine. The machine having been set in motion, E, by communication
with the wheels F, all of which are driven by it, causes the cam G to
push forward the lever H, which, terminating at I, pushes forward the
flattened continuation of I indicated by dotted lines, until it moves
a blank placed in the collar J, at the bottom of the hopper _h_, on
to the scale-pan K, which, for the sake of clearness, is isolated,
and will be seen behind the machine and under the extreme end of the
hopper. So soon as the blank coin has been placed on the scale-pan K,
the cam L lowers a lever _n_, the office of which is to permit the
opening of the forceps M, and thus to release the rod, Q, dependent
from K upon the knife-edge R. The forceps are closed by the cam L,
which raises _n_, and by it compresses an attached spring. The forceps
are intended to hold _this_ rod Q while the blank is placed on K,
because the friction caused by the placing of the blank would have a
tendency to push K from the knife-edge on which it is suspended, and
thus blunt its delicate edge. While the forceps are opened the cam N,
by its partial revolution, lifts the rod O, which is steadied in its
motion, by a pin rising from it, and entering the inverted arch _o_;
its lower extremity working into a socket on the table on which the
whole frame of the machine stands.

Towards its lower extremity the rod O will be seen to branch out right
and left, until each end passes through a kind of step in the rods Q,
indicated by P. The office of this rod is to bring the beam, from which
the rods Q are dependent, to a dead level, as well as to release both
ends of the beam by one action. At the moment that the forceps M have
released the right hand rod Q, the cam N, by O, releases both the rods
Q, by rising from the steps P, thus permitting the beam to determine
the weight of the blank placed on K. A close inspection of the steel
engraving will show that the rods Q are suspended from and rest upon
the knife-edges R of the beam S, which has a centre knife-edge T, by
which the whole mass is supported and poised. The knife-edges are
made to find their own planes or resting-places upon curved or hollow
pieces of steel, thus securing the smallest point of contact with a
certainty of the smallest amount of friction. In ordinary balances the
substance to be weighed is placed in a pan, which is on the same level
as the pan which contains the counterpoise; but in Mr. Cotton’s balance
this condition is of no consequence, so that the counterpoise rests
ultimately upon a point which is at the same distance from the centre
of action as the point upon which the matter to be weighed rests. The
counterpoise U is placed in a kind of cage, and any variation from this
standard is at once indicated, even if it reach only to the thousandth
part of a grain. By law, the weight of a coin may vary to a certain
extent from a standard weight;[25] the variation or latitude allowed
is called _remedy_, from the Latin _ad remediam_; and in weighing,
this remedy is taken advantage of by a contrivance much simplified by
Mr. Pilcher. The weight of a sovereign is 123·274 grains, but it may
by law be either 123·474 grains, or it may fall to 123·074[26] grains.
Mr. Pilcher therefore reduced the counterpoise to the minimum allowed,
thus avoiding the placing of a remedy-wire for the light side; and he
then made the remedy-wire _q_ (shown in the first enlarged portion on
the left-hand side of the steel engraving), which is placed on the
stand W, upon a peculiarly-formed point indicated by V, so heavy that
any blank which would not raise it and the counterpoise must be within
the remedy on the _heavy_ side. In accordance with this arrangement,
the continuation of the rod Q is terminated by a cage at V; so that
if a blank be so _light_ as to be unable to raise the counterpoise U
until the stirrup comes in contact with the remedy, it is too light
to make a legal coin. This fact being determined, the motion of the
machine causes the cam X to bring back the rod I (indicated by dotted
lines), that it may be ready when required to push forward another
blank, and the forceps M to grasp the rod Q, while the cam Y permits
the falling of the rod Z, which is nearly counterpoised by the ball _m_
(the precise length of the rod being regulated by the screw _j_), until
its finger _a_ rests upon the indicator _b_. The depth to which _a_
shall fall is fixed by the step _l_ (shown by Q in the second enlarged
portion of the steel engraving). This is, of course, determined by the
forceps, securing Q at the position indicated by the weight of the
blank. The indicating finger _b_ having come to rest, the continued
motion of the machine causes the cam _c_ to permit the shoot _d_ to
fall until one of its steps _e_ comes into contact with the indicating
finger, when the lower part of the shoot must be exactly over, and
form part of, one of the tubes _k_, which terminate in boxes labelled
respectively “heavy,” “light,” “medium.” The shoot having taken its
position, the continued motion of the machine causes the cam G to
induce the placing of another blank on the scale-pan K, and this blank,
by advancing, pushes off the one just weighed, which, falling into and
through the shoot, passes to the compartment reserved for it. Suppose
the newly-placed blank to be too heavy for forming a legal coin, the
same operation goes on, but it now lifts not only the counterpoise, but
also causes the stirrup at V to lift the remedy-weight _q_. This is a
most delicate operation, for if a blow, however light, be given, it
would cause unsteadiness in the beam. Mr. Pilcher therefore determined
to make the carriage W, which supports the remedy-wire _q_, stand upon
micrometer screws, by which the remedy-wire is made just to touch the
stirrup, without pressure, while it also rests upon the most minute
points, formed by cutting away every part of V which is not actually
required—in fact, shelving it out. The scale-pan K is protected from
draught by the lantern _f_, while the blanks are directed into the
collar J by the guard _g_, as they slide down the hopper _h_, which
at its centre is supported by an upright, _i_. The blocks _p_ are the
supports which hold all the machinery to the roof of the machine.

[Footnote 25: See pages 71-73.]

[Footnote 26: See pages 73, 123, 124.]

Some new machines have recently been supplied to the Mint by Mr. James
Napier, but it is not certain that these are cheaper than the old ones.
That they are lower in price may be admitted, and they are certainly
more convenient in use, from the fact that the wheels shown at F are
placed at the back. It is, however, to be regretted that Mr. Napier
did not introduce into these new machines the recent inventions of Mr.
William Bradshaw, which are supremely simple, and, now that they are
effected, one cannot but wonder that so many minds having been engaged
on these machines, improvements such as these have not earlier seen the
light. To Mr. Bradshaw, particularly, great credit is due, for he was
obliged to overcome, not only innate difficulties, but difficulties of
position, and these latter were of no mean kind. It is to the credit of
the Mint authorities that they finally adopted these improvements, and
ordered the necessary alterations to be made in _all_ the machines.

Mr. Bradshaw’s improvements enable the automaton balances to weigh 30
per cent. more coins in the same time; yet they permit each coin to
occupy a longer space of time in being weighed. This would appear to
be a mechanical contradiction, but if reference be made to the plate
it will be seen that the cam G pushes forward the lever H, which
ultimately, by the slide, pushes the blanks on to the scale-pan K.
By altering the shape of the cam G, Mr. Bradshaw causes it to do its
work more rapidly, and thus leaves the piece on K longer than before;
but that this time may not be lost, he alters also the shapes of the
cam L and of the cam N, so that the forceps M are opened, and the beam
is released more rapidly: thus the balance would be longer in action;
but to utilise the time ready to be saved, he alters also the driving
pulley E, causing the machine to make 30 per cent. more determinations
per minute, and that this may be effected with greater certainty he
reduced the depth of the step, shown at _e_, to just one-half, so that
the beam has to travel only half the distance it formerly travelled to
determine the position of the light, heavy, or medium piece. He next
proceeded to alter the rod O, because he observed that it received a
tilting motion arising from its being lifted by a shoulder, as shown
in the plate. To overcome this defect he made the rod straight up to
a certain point, where he divided it into a kind of loop which passed
over the cam N, which, as it revolves, lifts this rod perpendicularly.
He still found that the cam N had a tendency to push this rod against
its bearings, especially at _o_, so he placed a spring of brass between
the top of its loop and the cam N, and secured at one end to _p_, and
by this contrivance made the cam to lift the brass, and that in its
turn to raise the rod O. There was yet another difficulty, caused by
an occasional stoppage of the action of the spring which softens the
descent of the bearing of the rod O into its lower socket; this he
removed by cutting a hole in the side of the socket, so that it can be
seen at once if the spring be in action. I am not one who approves his
suggestions as to the remedy-wires. These may be the means of saving
time, but they are wrong in principle, and I do not describe them.

Great inconvenience arose from the collection of dust, spangles of
bullion, and other foreign matter on parts of the balance. This Mr.
Bradshaw overcame by two simple contrivances; first, he pierced the
bottoms of the grooved trays, so that these substances might in a great
measure fall through while the blanks were being arranged in rouleaux,
thus separating the largest pieces, which, falling down the shoot,
would stop its action; and, secondly, he placed a glass shelf midway
between the table and the beam, that is, beneath the hopper _h_, where
it terminates at J, and above the beam S, where it is seen near the
forceps M, thus protecting the beam and forceps. These may appear to
be trifling alterations,—they are nevertheless to Cotton’s balance
what the compound metal balance-wheel is to a watch. Mr. Pilcher was
granted the _magnificent_ sum of £40 for his invention of the file (to
be described), but it is hoped that Mr. Bradshaw will be rewarded with
a far more open-handed generosity; for if, by judicious liberality,
encouragements are offered to those in the Civil Service to give to
the country the benefit of their inventions, we may still hope that
even our Government institutions will bear comparison with ordinary
commercial manufactories as regards the development of inventive
genius. Nor is this a small matter, for all the working improvements in
the Cotton’s balance have been made by those whose duty it is to attend
to their working; yet I am not aware that any acknowledgment, either
direct or indirect, has been made to the officers concerned. It is
said that their salaries cover all their time and energy. This may be
true, but such a policy is not calculated to result in many great steps
towards perfecting either machines or processes.

It is well to state that the beam in Mr. Cotton’s balance is 8·90
inches in length, and that its weight is 288·41 troy grains.

Those blanks which are neither too light nor too heavy are called
_medium_, and are weighed and put into bags for future issue as coins.
The _light_ are reserved for the melting-pot. The _heavy_ blanks should
be reduced by means of a peculiar kind of file to the weight of medium
blanks, and thus saved from being melted, so avoiding further loss
to the Mint. This file was invented by Mr. Pilcher, who, being the
officer of this room, considers his duty to be neglected if there be
any improvement capable of being made, but which is left undone; he
never tires till the invention is complete and the machine made. Mr.
Albert Barre, the distinguished engraver to the Paris Mint, declares
this file to have surmounted all the difficulties he has met with in
this part of the process. In his own words, “it leaves the face of the
blank untouched, and free to develop the work of the engraver, which no
other file does, or can effect, because any metal which is _ploughed_
out from the face of a blank, leaves a hole which is not filled up in
coining.”

The opinions which I have here expressed have so far prevailed on two
of the travellers to European Mints, as to induce them to glance,
though rather shyly, at the necessity for reducing heavy blanks; but
Mr. Napier writes a passage which I quote, as it demonstrates that
he, who is admittedly one of the most successfully ingenious men of
the age, has thought over and studied the words I wrote at page 60 of
the last edition—he took that book in his hand to the Mint on the day
after its publication—with that attention to which he thought they were
entitled. I beg the reader to ponder over Mr. Napier’s words, they are
most important; but I hope those who will be called upon to vote the
necessary money will also read my remarks on this extract from Mr.
Napier’s report on European Mints. He says at page 44:—

    “_Treatment of Too-heavy Blanks._—Notwithstanding the
    employment of the best mechanical appliances for rolling
    the bars, adjusting the fillets to gauge, and cutting
    out the blanks, and the most intelligent and painstaking
    workmen to carry on the operations, still, owing to
    unavoidable imperfections in the means, the blanks, when
    cut from the fillets, will not be found equal in weight,
    nor, indeed, so nearly equal that they can be recognised as
    of equal value, and passed on to be manufactured into coins
    destined to be put into circulation, and to represent one
    value. The irregularities will necessarily be more or less,
    according to the care and ability of the workmen, and the
    condition of the machinery; but under the most favourable
    circumstances only a certain proportion of the blanks
    will be found to come within the limits which it has been
    considered desirable to set down to restrict the quantity
    of error.

    “This being so, the following questions present themselves:
    Are the too-heavy and too-light blanks to be returned to
    the crucible and remelted, or to be passed on and detected
    only in the finished coin, and then sent to the crucible?
    Or are too-light blanks to be avoided altogether, and
    all the blanks to be made either of sufficient weight or
    too heavy? and in such case are the too-heavy blanks to
    be submitted to some process for reducing their weight
    to within the legal limit? Or is a more exact means to
    be preferred, by which they will be equalised to that
    perfection which cannot practically be questioned, and by
    which they will become, for all purposes, one and the same
    weight?

    “The facts collected are, that at nearly all the European
    Mints the reduction of too-heavy blanks, both of silver
    and gold, is practised, to avoid the loss attendant upon
    their return to the crucible, and that the endeavour is
    to make all the blanks either standard weight or heavier,
    so as to admit of reduction, to err, indeed, on the heavy
    side, even to the extent of necessitating the reduction
    of all the blanks. So great is the importance generally
    attached to this department, that it is calculated that, in
    some instances, nearly as many hands are employed in the
    service of it, including the weighing, as in all the other
    working departments combined. In Berlin, where particular
    care is devoted to the weight of the coins, between 200 and
    300 men are employed in times of pressure in the weighing
    and equalising of the blanks, which operations are in this
    instance performed by the workman with a hand shaving
    apparatus, fixed to the table at which he sits, and a pair
    of scales also placed near to him. The work done by one man
    is revised by a second, and the file is used for giving the
    finishing touch, so that the blanks are brought to great
    perfection in weight. But although the extent of the means
    shows the great importance attached to the results in the
    establishments visited, and the large expenditure which, at
    least in the opinion of the directors of these Mints, may
    be permitted with profit in this department, the serious
    consideration of the employment of so many hands would
    militate against the carrying out of the system in the New
    Mint. It may be satisfactory, therefore, to know that,
    in case the desirability of an exact coinage should be
    entertained, means for assuring it are at hand without the
    employment of manual labour for the purpose. The subject
    has, indeed, for many years occupied attention, and,
    after much labour and expense, the difficulties have been
    overcome, and a machine has been constructed to the order
    of the Government of India which fulfils all the required
    conditions for equalising the coinage to that perfection
    that no appreciable difference need exist between the
    standard weight and the coin blank which has passed through
    the machine. This machine differs essentially from those
    employed at the Mints visited, and which, it has been
    explained, only take a fixed quantity off each blank
    presented to the cutting tool, without reference to the
    weight of the blank, the operation being repeated or not,
    according to the result; or, in other words, no matter what
    be the weight of the blank, whether nearly light enough, or
    much too heavy, the cutting tool of the machine treats all
    in the same manner.

    “The equalising machine referred to, on the contrary, not
    only takes from the too-heavy blanks, each in succession,
    a quantity of their surplus weight, but it ascertains how
    much it is necessary to take off each blank to reduce it
    to the standard weight; and it deducts that amount only;
    so, although the blanks which are supplied to the hopper,
    or reservoir of the machine, enter the machine of unknown
    weight, they are equalised by it in once passing through,
    and are delivered into a receptacle for the finished work,
    all of one weight, the standard, or so near to it that good
    ordinary scales, such as are used for weighing blanks and
    coins, will not detect a difference.

    “Means can therefore be provided for the purpose, should it
    be decided to reduce the blanks to equal weight, or only
    to within the pale of accuracy instituted by Parliament,
    the basis of which legislation must be taken to have been
    the then practicable approach to perfection; for it is
    to be presumed that, with a sufficient assurance that
    accuracy akin to perfection was attainable ALONG WITH
    ECONOMY, the wisdom of Parliament would have enacted
    accordingly.

    “The first outlay for self-acting coin blank equalising
    machinery WOULD NECESSARILY BE LARGE, but it
    is believed at the same time that the saving would be
    considerable, especially upon gold.

    “The question of the amount of economy would have to be
    more fully gone into, and the expense of the machinery
    accurately estimated. Extensive and continuous experiments
    with the machine have also STILL TO BE MADE TO ACQUIRE
    A KNOWLEDGE OF ITS USE, and to ascertain, after a
    _lengthened_ probation, whether any modifications in
    the details are advisable: the limited experiments already
    made leave no doubt, however, of the successful result.

    “The arguments in favour of an _exact coinage_ chiefly
    rest upon an economical basis, and branch out beyond the
    walls of the establishment into questions of currency,
    wear, and recoinage, which it is not thought necessary to
    treat of here; at the same time it may be stated that it
    seems desirable that the coinage should be made as exact to
    weight as possible CONSISTENT WITH ECONOMY, and
    that an _exact coinage_ would be found more economical
    as a circulating medium, would be more just, and a better
    starting-point from which to legislate for the withdrawal
    from circulation of worn coin than a coinage issued from
    the Mint with acknowledged errors, or differences in weight
    so substantial as to be represented in value, in the case
    of gold coins, by some of the lesser denominations of the
    coins of the realm.”

The reasons which Mr. Napier gives are worthy of grave
consideration—they are mine wholly—except so far as regards those to
which I have drawn attention by printing them in small capital letters,
and which show that even with his vast experience he dare not answer
for the success of his machine, while the suggestion of the necessity
“to acquire a knowledge of its use” should make a desire to recur to a
successful machine paramount. If, indeed, I rested on my own opinion,
I should be content to see Mr. Napier’s machine tried, although I
think its failure would be established; but it so happens that I can
quote the opinion of the late Master of the Mint on the machine under
consideration, expressed at a period when the efficiently economical
conduct of the Royal Mint had received his utmost consideration. In his
letter to the Treasury, dated 7th June, 1860, he says:—

    “I may be allowed to call to your recollection that a
    Parliamentary grant of £1,100 was obtained by the Mint in
    1856 for the purchase of two automaton filing and adjusting
    machines, which it was proposed to have constructed by
    Messrs. R. Napier and Sons, the eminent engineers. No part
    of this grant has been appropriated. The rapid amendment in
    the blanks which took place immediately afterwards led me
    to suspend the order for these machines, and ultimately to
    abandon the idea of any great expenditure for the object
    contemplated. In the meantime also, a machine of a much
    more simple character was contrived by Mr. R. Pilcher, of
    the weighing room, and was constructed in the Mint, with no
    assistance from without. Pilcher’s adjusting machine has
    proved sufficiently effective, costs nothing for labour,
    and has now been in constant operation for two years. The
    cost of making a pair of machines such as we now possess
    is estimated at £60, a sum which was saved to the public
    by the mode in which the work was executed. Trusting that
    the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury will be
    disposed to consider favourably the merit and practical
    value of such an invention, I venture to solicit their
    Lordship’s sanction to the application of £60, the sum
    just stated, to the benefit of the inventor, jointly with
    an ingenious mechanic on the establishment, who gave
    material assistance in the construction of the machine. I
    would propose the following awards, if agreeable to their
    Lordships:—To Mr. R. Pilcher, £40; to Meredith Jones, £20.”

It was upon advice tendered by myself that Mr. Graham thus excluded
the machine now recommended by Mr. Napier. I maintain that a simple
machine should be preferred before a complicated one, and the Mint
authorities should give Mr. Pilcher’s £60 machines—admittedly perfect
in operation—a fair trial against Mr. Napier’s £1,100 machines, and see
if they prove _equally effective_. If, on the other hand, Mr. Napier’s
fails, then it is but fair to the public that that machine which is
undoubtedly a success, and for which the inventor has been _publicly
rewarded, although in a most inadequate manner_, should be used.

The machine thus spoken of was used with the utmost advantage until
1866, when its use was abolished by the advice of Mr. John Graham, who
subsequently, in 1868, broke it to pieces that _his improvements_ might
be rendered permanent, thus causing an expense of 50 per cent. on the
total cost of manufacture for _rejected coins_,[27] because the use
of the file having been abolished, the coined money alone was weighed,
thus rendering it impossible to reduce the heavy pieces.

[Footnote 27: That is, coins which, although otherwise perfect in
manufacture, are not within the limited variations of weight permitted
by the Mint regulations.]

[Illustration: Fig. 14.—Pilcher’s Filing Machine.]

Although the use of this file has thus been stopped, it is greatly to
be hoped that it will again be employed, and thus enable the Government
to produce coined money at the cheapest possible[28] rate, because it
enables the Mint authorities to obtain the largest per-centage from the
bars. Feeling that this much-desired re-introduction will take place,
it is thought wise to give the following description of Pilcher’s file,
which, if not desired for the benefit of our own Mint, will be adopted
by other coining countries:—Fig. 14 is a representation of this compact
machine. The blanks A are placed in rouleaux in a tube B, which is open
at top and at bottom; through the opening at the bottom the blanks rest
their EDGES on the file C, which, as it revolves about 1,000 times per
minute, files off metal from the edge of the blank. Each machine has
two tubes, and when both have been filled the rod D, which carries a
triangular knife-edge, is released by the lever E, and the knife-edge
resting upon the upper edge of the blanks A,—with the intention of
offering resistance to their rotary motion,—enables the operator to
remove MUCH OR LITTLE metal from their edges at pleasure by increasing
the resistance which D offers by adding a weight G on to the gallery F.
H is a glass dish into which the dust, as it is removed from the edges
of the blanks, falls, thus insuring a perfect _separation of the dust_
from the blanks. The blanks in B are kept in their position by small
blocks of ebony, which are secured by the thumb-screws I. Motion is
given by the wheel J, which communicates with the pulley K by a cord or
catgut. The whole machine stands on a block of mahogany L, secured to a
table of oak. M is a screw which is used to tighten the cords between J
and K. Between C and H is a hopper of brass to catch flying particles
of the precious metals. Each file reduces 250 sovereign blanks per
minute.

[Footnote 28: See pages 108, 109.]

The objections which were raised to the introduction and use of this
machine were curious, and amongst others it was firmly maintained that
it caused the coining press to make brockages, because the blanks which
had been filed were smaller than those which had not been thus treated.
The amusing part of this objection was that _all_ the blanks were
afterwards reduced to a uniform diameter by the edges being compressed
_before_ being coined.

The medium blanks—now unfortunately the coined moneys—are rung by boys
to detect any which may be dumb or cracked, and which are rejected for
melting. Dumb or cracked pieces arise when bubbles of air are enclosed
in the bars at the time of pouring the fluid metal into the moulds in
the melting-house.

Besides this source of dumb work may be mentioned another of large
occurrence in silver, and occasionally met with in gold, which results
from an imperfect mixture of the alloy at the time of melting, and
developes itself at the draw-bench, where whole fillets, of six feet
long, may be seen to separate into two complete layers of metal, the
inner surfaces being coated with a thin film of copper, frequently
quite pure, but sometimes in the form of suboxide. It would thus appear
that a globule of copper becomes enveloped in a volume of fluid gold
or silver, and, in the act of pouring, this globule is drawn out into
a kind of wire, perhaps extending some inches in length, enclosed in
precious metal. When this is rolled it is all flattened together, but
there is no adhesion between the surfaces, so that when the fillet
passes through the draw-bench the lateral motion given to the atoms
of the metal causes the slip which finally separates the two surfaces
of metal, and the eye at once detects the existence of the fault. In
the coinage of 1857, no less than 141·38 ounces of gold fillets thus
imperfect were returned to the melter in one day, and on the whole of
that coinage these fillets averaged nearly 0·50 per cent. (see page
92). In the case of silver this defect is of less consequence, but
of greater occurrence. It is the duty of the melter to see that such
bars are neither produced nor forwarded, and there can be but little
doubt that in a properly conducted Mint the melter would be directed to
re-melt such fillets without payment to the men.

[Illustration: Fig. 15.—Jones’s Edge-Compressor.]

The medium blanks which would now be fit for coining should be weighed
up in bags of about 500 ounces, instead of 180 ounces, as is the
custom, and sent forward to the room in which is placed a machine which
has to diminish the diameter of each blank by compressing its edges.
This is called a _marking machine_, but such a name being obviously
improper, it is preferred to call it the EDGE-COMPRESSOR. Up to 1861
the best machine for this purpose was that invented and patented by
Messrs. R. Heaton and Sons, of the Mint, Birmingham; but in the early
part of 1858 the subject of the varying diameter of blanks came under
consideration as effecting the production of brockage. Mr. Pilcher was
consulted by me, and proposed a machine, of which he gave the outline,
which I submitted to the Master of the Mint on the 31st of March, 1858.
This machine was to be fed from the top, but was abandoned because
it did not meet the desired minimum of 1,000 pieces per minute. Mr.
Pilcher therefore proposed to erect on the same spindle five revolving
discs, and to face these five discs with as many cheeks. At a given
time it was determined to manufacture a marking machine, and one of
five which Mr. Pilcher proposed was to be made. It was preferred to ask
Mr. Meredith Jones to assist in its manufacture. Mr. Jones had also
a design for a machine for this purpose, and it was arranged that as
Mr. Jones made Mr. Pilcher’s file he should make his own machine. Mr.
Jones proposed, and Mr. Pilcher accepted, the following proposition.
Mr. Pilcher was to retire from the machine, and in consideration of
his so retiring, and allowing the machine to be called Jones’s marking
machine, Mr. Jones was to give Mr. Pilcher one-half of whatever
sum might be paid by the Mint for the use of the machine. Fig. 15
represents Mr. Jones’s machine. The blanks are placed in the hopper
A, and fall by an incline into a tube B until they rest at C, on a
notched wheel D. As D revolves each of its notches carries away the
bottom blank of the pile from the tube B, and leaves it to slide down
the tube E till it reaches the block F. The block F is cut with a
narrow groove, which exactly corresponds with the groove Gᵃ on the
plate or disc G. The disc G revolves, and as the blank slides down and
comes with some little impetus against the groove in the block F, the
groove Gᵃ catches it, and causes it to take two revolutions between
the disc G and the block F, finally permitting its escape at H, when
it falls into I, being now reduced in diameter and thicker on the
edge, but its centre remaining as it was before. The machine is driven
by J, the shaft of which carries a reduced rigger for the driving of
K. The hopper is supported by the rod L. The distance between F and
G represents the diameter of the blank after its edge is compressed,
this distance being determined by the screws seen at M. Blanks of all
diameters may be compressed at this machine if the block F and the
plate or disc G be removed and replaced by others, neither operation
taking many minutes. The edges of the blanks are compressed at the rate
of 700 per minute. A boy of fourteen could work this perfectly well,
and with more convenience now that the hopper is replaced by such a one
as is used to supply Mr. Cotton’s weighing machine. The edge of the
blank is compressed with a view to prepare it for the _crenating_ to be
given by the collar in the after process of conversion into a coin.

The blanks are conveyed from the edge-compressor to the annealing room,
where they are placed in rouleaux in iron boxes, the tops of which are
luted on with clay, the boxes are then placed on iron carriages, and
run into reverberatory furnaces, heated by Juckse’s smoke-consuming
apparatus, where they remain for an indefinite period. The furnaces are
like that represented in the rolling room for annealing the fillets in
copper tubes. To anneal the blanks, the temperature should be raised
rapidly until the boxes attain a full red heat; and the time allowed
for the operation should be from twenty to twenty-five minutes at the
utmost. After the heating, the boxes are withdrawn from the furnace
and placed on the floor of the room, till the blanks are assumed to
have become of a low red or black heat, the point below that at which
copper combines rapidly with oxygen; they are then opened. If the boxes
be opened while the blanks are still of a full red heat, there is what
is called too much loss by annealing, or, in other words, too much
of the copper has become oxidised, and thus rendered soluble in the
dilute sulphuric acid into which they are presently removed. The box
having been opened, the blanks are turned out into a copper tray, and
on this carried to a cistern of cold water, in which a colander stands;
they are thrown through the water into this colander, and thus cooled
rapidly. When cool, they are taken in the colander to a leaden cistern
of nearly boiling dilute sulphuric acid, into which they are placed,
and allowed to remain for about three or four minutes. By means of this
bath of sulphuric acid a thin skin of oxide of copper is removed; the
gold on the surface from which the copper has been washed out is of
a sponge-like form, and gives a beautiful bloom to the new coin when
it is struck. This process is called _blanching_, and is of great
interest to the coiner, as it is here that his loss by coining takes
place. The bars of gold sent to the coiner are found to be standard
within certain limits,[29] therefore the blanks produced from those
bars must be of the same fineness; but by this process of blanching,
copper is removed; hence the standard, or the amount of pure gold
contained in the blanks, is proportionably raised, and this tells on
the million to an amazing extent. When the annealing is conducted for
too long a period, the copper becomes oxidised to too great an extent
during the time of annealing, for there is no atmosphere more capable
of oxidising than is that of one of these furnaces; it is for this
reason that the heat should be gained rapidly, before that oxidising
atmosphere shall have time to permeate the luting and attack the copper
of the standard gold. At the trial of the pyx in 1861 the gold coined
by Mr. Thomas Graham, the late Master, was found to be “4 grains on
the pound too fine;” that is to say, containing in 5,760 grains 5,284
grains of pure gold in the place of 5,280 grains, which it should have
contained. This is well for the people, but it is bad for the Master of
the Mint, because he has lost 4 grains of pure gold on each pound that
he has coined, which amounts to no less than £757·65870 in value upon
every million of sovereigns. This loss may well be avoided, either by
adding extra alloy to allow for this removal of copper, or, as would be
far wiser, by abolishing the process of annealing the blanks, as was
done in 1859, when more than a quarter of a million of sovereigns were
coined from unannealed blanks obtained from brittle gold which was much
harder than any ordinary gold to be met with. It must be remembered
that the saving of bullion would leave a large margin for the increased
destruction of dies, and in addition the coin would wear longer in
circulation.

[Footnote 29: See page 53.]

By his elaborate experiments Mr. Charles Hatchett proved not only
that the British standard gold was the best alloy for coins, but that
this alloy should be so manipulated as to avoid either the extreme of
ductility or of hardness, and when this medium was attained the coins
produced wore longer and better than any others.

It will be of importance in this place to consider the question of
annealing the blanks previously to coining them, and experience teaches
that this process should be omitted. The gold alluded to as coined in
1859 from unannealed blanks was the same gold that was spoken of as
being so toughened in the form of bars when the fluid metal had been
poured through a stream of coal gas.[30] The gold contained antimony,
arsenic, and lead, so was predisposed to become brittle; but by pouring
through the air it absorbed oxygen, and became certainly the most
brittle gold that has passed through my hands. It was toughened by
reducing the oxide of copper, and worked remarkably well, producing
the most workable fillets, regular and uniform blanks, which yielded
an average of 5·67 per cent. rejected. The blanks were tough, soft,
and very malleable, capable of being cut with a chisel without
fracture, and ringing musically on an iron block, thus satisfying
all the requirements of good coining gold; but directly these blanks
were annealed they showed 30 per cent. of pieces so brittle that they
could be broken by a moderate pressure of the finger and thumb. After
coining, the whole mass became so brittle that less than 2 per cent.
remained sound after twice ringing on an iron block, as is the usual
practice. These brittle coins, when again annealed, and suddenly cooled
by plunging into cold water, became tolerably tough, and withstood
ringing to 8 times, when they again became brittle. It now became
evident that none of this gold should be issued to the public,—indeed,
I may state that this same gold had been rejected by all the coining
countries as unfit for coin. It was therefore ordered to be melted
and returned to the Bank as unfit for coin, its value being £167,539.
After every possible obstacle had been placed in the way, I overcame
the aversion to change, obtained permission to try some experiments
on this gold, rewrought it, and coined it all without annealing. The
coin thus produced was so tough that an ordinary man could not break
a sovereign even by the aid of a pair of pliers.[31] Yet when these
toughened coins were annealed, they became so brittle that a child
could break them readily. In the Royal Mint some of these coins in each
state are preserved. Mr. Graham, then ever anxious to secure to the
Mint any advantage, was pleased to address to the Treasury a letter on
the subject of this gold, in which he said, “A correspondence between
the Governor of the Bank and myself on the brittle property of the gold
occasionally imported into the Mint to be coined was formerly brought
under your notice in my letter of the 21st March, 1857. The evidence
of the evil in question was not confined to the Royal Mint, but has,
I believe, been felt at all other mints, and also by goldsmiths
generally, since the recent gold discoveries. It was traced to the
presence in the gold of a minute portion of antimony or arsenic (often
not greater in quantity than one-tenth of a per cent.), which escapes
the observation of the assayers. But no remedy in dealing with such
gold then presented itself, except the expensive one of having the
brittle gold refined.

[Footnote 30: See page 6.]

[Footnote 31: These coins, struck between marked dies, may be
recognised by a small line which I placed in the centre of the ribbon
at the back of the head representing her Majesty on the obverse.]

“An unusually large proportion of the gold received for coining
last year was of this defective character, but the whole of it was
successfully coined notwithstanding, and no part returned to the Bank
to be refined, as on former occasions.

“This improvement in the practice of the coining department is the
result of a laborious investigation made in the coining department, of
which I am happy to assign the chief merit to Mr. Ansell.

“It now appears that the antimony or arsenic acts injuriously when
the gold blanks are allowed to cool gradually, but not when cooled
suddenly, after annealing, the gold appearing to have time to
crystallise and become granular under the influence of the antimony
particles in the one case, but not in the other. The improvement may be
justly represented as one of considerable value. It saves entirely much
extra labour hitherto applied to brittle gold without any beneficial
result. It will also lead to the diminution of waste, of which brittle
gold was always a fruitful source.”[32]

[Footnote 32: Besides many verbal congratulations, the Master wrote me
the following letter:—

    Registered No. 3026, 1860.
    Royal Mint, 20th October, 1860.

    DEAR SIR,

    Your success in obviating the difficulty of coining gold containing
    a minute portion of antimony or arsenic is a benefit to this
    department, which calls for my most grateful thanks. In recognition
    of your services I have the pleasure, with the approbation of the
    Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, to present to you the
    sum of one hundred pounds, for which cheque is enclosed.

                   I have the honour to be,
                                    Dear Sir,
                                          Most faithfully yours,
                                                  THO. GRAHAM.
    George F. Ansell, Esq.

]

I do not accept the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Graham, for my
experiments showed clearly that this peculiar gold could not be heated
even to a black heat after coining without becoming absolutely brittle
under all circumstances. Notwithstanding the experience gained by
the coining of this brittle gold, the annealing of coined money was
effected by the present authorities at the Royal Mint in 1868, when
a vast amount of brittle gold was coined, of which considerably more
than half a million sterling in coined pieces were annealed and plunged
into cold water, just as was done in 1859, and with precisely similar
effects; that is, the production of brittle pieces, as soft as lead
and perfectly rotten. These pieces were sent to the Bank of England,
where they have given great dissatisfaction. They should have been
melted, as were those of 1859. I, being an officer of the Mint at the
time, offered to coin this gold as I had coined that in 1859; my offer
was declined, and a vast mass of very brittle coin was, in addition
to that of which I have spoken as having been annealed after coining,
issued to the public, besides many thousands of ounces uncoined having
been returned to the Bank of England by the Mint authorities, who found
themselves unable to coin it; these facts being, as I think, little to
the credit of the official ability.

The Right Honourable Lord Kinnaird, with a view to relieve the Mint
authorities, suggested, on the 22nd of March last, from his place in
the House of Lords, a proviso “that such gold”—specified in clause 8
of the Coinage Bill then under discussion—“should be free from lead,
antimony, and other substances, so as to admit of its being coined
without previous refining.” The Government promised to consider this
suggestion, and, after consideration, rejected it, although the right
thus proposed to be established has always been claimed by the Mint but
disputed by the Bank of England. His lordship then drew the attention
of the House of Lords to the issue of the brittle sovereigns, to which
I have alluded, as having given so much dissatisfaction at the Bank,
and on the 25th of March, the following letter appeared in the _Times_:—

                    “THE COINAGE BILL DEBATE.
                “_To the Editor of the Times._

    “SIR,—In your full and very correct report of what I
    stated in the House last night on the Coinage Bill, there is an
    error which I think must have occurred in the printing—‘sweat’
    should be ‘sweep.’ I think what I said in regard to the £640,000
    sent by the Mint to the Bank would have been clearer if I had
    added—‘Its brittleness was increased by being annealed after
    coining.’

                               “Your obedient servant,
                                                   “KINNAIRD.
    “50, Avenue Road, Regent’s Park,
         “March 23rd.”

Attention being thus forcibly drawn to a great evil, the Marquess of
Lansdowne, in reply to Lord Kinnaird’s remarks on the appointment of
Mr. Roberts, stated that “Mr. Roberts was a very eminent chemist, who
had proved his capabilities by devising a system for depriving gold of
the obnoxious properties on which the noble lord recently commented.”
Lord Kinnaird has already pointed out that this process, which the
eminent Mr. Roberts has “devised,” was discovered by Dr. Percy, and
that the process was published by that gentleman so long since as 1848.
Dr. Percy conceived the elegant idea that if a stream of chlorine gas
were passed over an ore containing gold, the chlorine would combine
with the gold and dissolve it out from its matrix, as water would do
sugar. This it does with complete success, forming a chloride of gold
which is readily soluble in water, and from which it can be obtained
with the utmost ease.

With regard to the invention of the process for which Lord Lansdowne
gave Mr. Roberts credit, the facts of the case stand as follows. Dr.
Percy discovered that by means of chlorine gas he could separate gold
from its ores. He described his invention in the Transactions of the
British Association in 1848, and in the Philosophical Transactions
in 1850. Plattner carried it out practically about 1852 in Silesia,
and I, in January, 1856, conducted a long series of experiments upon
it for the Chancellorsville Gold Mining Company. The exact process
now proposed or “devised” by Mr. Roberts was patented by Mr. Miller,
the present assayer to the Sydney Mint, in 1867—No. 1767. When Lord
Lansdowne finds himself thus deceived, he will probably in future think
it necessary to examine statements suggested to him before making them
from his place in the House of Lords.

This _new_ process consists in forcing chlorine gas through melted
gold, and it is assumed that the chlorine will carry off the silver,
lead, antimony, tin, and arsenic, which render the gold brittle. On the
face of the proposition, there are very grave reasons for believing
that it will fail if tried. This also is the deliberate opinion of the
most eminent metallurgical chemist of this or any other time; indeed,
it has been tried and found a failure. It has failed of its object, and
instead, attacks the gold, which, with the chlorine, will leave the
melting-pot and pass into the chimney, creating a use for the proposed
chimney chambers of Mr. Roberts.

Experience at the Mint is to the effect that the run of gold ingots
produced by the melting of worn and light coins culled from those in
circulation is found to be worse than standard by 1-500th, or two in
each thousand parts. There can be no doubt but that this is mainly
due to the fact of the loss of copper by the processes of annealing
and blanching. In actual practice extending over many millions, it is
found that 1,000,000 sovereign blanks lose 5,708 grains of copper:
now, since this copper is removed from the surface, it leaves a
sponge of pure gold coating that surface. Pure gold is very soft, and
rapidly wears away, so that when the coins from which 5,708 grains of
copper have been taken go into circulation, this film of gold, which
amounts to £555·62 on each million pieces, is removed by friction.
It will probably be argued that the copper being taken first and the
gold afterwards, leaves the coin of the same standard as the original
bars;[33] if, however, this proposition be examined, it will be seen
that the bars are assayed and found to be below standard 0·55562 on the
thousand coins; but the blanks obtained from the bars are, by annealing
and blanching,[34] brought to standard before they are coined, and
those coins assayed WHILE NEW are found to be standard by the jury
of goldsmiths at the trial of the pyx, because they retain this film
of gold; let them, however, go into circulation and lose their film
of gold, and they will be reduced to the original composition of the
bar; that is, worse than standard 0·55562 in the 1,000. The trial of
the pyx[35] is supposed to be a great protection to the people against
deterioration of the coinage. This opinion is not entertained by those
who have witnessed the whole operation, for then it is manifest that
the copper is sufficiently oxidised while melting to insure the alloy
containing enough gold to enable the jury to find it “Fine, 4 grains
on the pound,” or any other degree of fineness. There can be no doubt
that the jury should be composed of men knowing something practically
of assaying, and who would not hesitate to publish every detail of the
process adopted, stating specifically the amount of loss incurred by
melting the ingot produced from the selected coins. That the jury is
composed of honourable men—goldsmiths—is beyond doubt; but that these
goldsmiths should know how to assay is also an important matter, and
should be a _sine quâ non_. It would be well if some independent
member would move the House for a return of the assays by the Mint of
ingots produced from worn and light coin received from the Bank of
England.

[Footnote 33: See pages 48, 49.]

[Footnote 34: See pages 48, 49.]

[Footnote 35: See pages 166, 167.]

Having thus specifically stated in my previous editions the facts as
they exist of our coinage, I waited a refutation of my statement.
I was informed that the Bank of England had made careful assays,
and proved that the worn gold coin was not below the standard of
fineness. I was also informed that bullion merchants in London had
obtained newly-coined sovereigns, and by means of a scratch-brush had
removed the film of pure gold of which I spoke, and upon a re-assay no
difference had been detected. My reply was, and continues to be, the
assays were either made by bunglers or were carelessly made, while with
regard to the statement related _for_ the Bank of England, I simply
refused credence because in my own knowledge that Institution has been
greatly puzzled for years as to the reason of the lower assay, and it
was myself who pointed out the cause to Mr. Thomas Graham on the 4th
January, 1860. That gentleman mentioned my suggestion to the then chief
cashier, who preferred to think “it was due to the base coins which
found their way into the Bank.” I said then as I think now—“I believe
the officers of the Bank of England are far too sharp to take one base
coin in five hundred.” This reply settled the discussion.

That the light and worn coin is habitually below the standard is
conclusively proved by the fact that if any man should take, as the
great Duke of Wellington did, a thousand sovereigns to a jeweller’s to
be made into plate—and his Grace took coined money that he might be
sure to have plate of the fineness of 22 carats, or standard gold—he
would find, as the duke found to his cost, the plate “cut” at the
Goldsmiths’ Hall as being below standard. That the case still exists is
so well acknowledged by jewellers that they invariably add “fine gold”
when they melt coin for plate which is to be stamped with the Hall mark.

“Monetarius,” who wrote to the _Times_ from Malvern—where, singularly,
Mr. Thomas Graham was then residing—and Sir John Herschel, quoted in
their letters to the _Times_ the report of a Belgian chemist to prove
that our coinage is invariably standard. Such authorities seemed to
quiet public opinion; but Lord Kinnaird moved on two occasions in
the House of Lords for the “Returns of assays by the Mint of ingots
produced from worn and light coin received at the Mint from the Bank of
England.” The Government firmly refused these returns on the alleged
ground that they were “too bulky;” Lord Kinnaird, however, explained
the true cause of the refusal when he said that these returns would
conclusively prove that the gold coinage, when worn, is habitually
below the standard, as is also shown by Mr. Ernest Seyd in his letter
of the 20th, inserted in the _Times_ of the 21st August, 1869:—

    “... The British public are under the impression that
    English sovereigns stand highest as far as correctness in
    quality is concerned. In reality, the British gold coin
    falls much more below its standard fineness than French,
    American, and Russian coin.... But the best proof of the
    greater inferiority of the British gold coin is given by
    the action of the Bank of England. The Bank of England
    cuts light gold coin, and so renders it unfit for further
    circulation. The holder of such coin thus loses, in the
    first place, the value of the gold worn away by abrasion,
    and the cut sovereigns are handed back to him as being now
    only bullion (the loss so far amounts to from 1_d._
    to 4_d._ per sovereign); the bullion now remaining is
    the metal of which the coin had been made, presumably at
    the rate of 77_s._ 10½_d._ per ounce, and worth
    that much, or, at the Bank rate for buying gold, at least
    77_s._ 9_d._ per ounce. Yet the Bank of England
    will not give more than 77_s._ 6½_d._ for it.
    Worth at Mint price, 934½_d._, the Bank pays but
    930½_d._ per ounce—a deduction of 0·43 per cent.”

_I_ need not express an opinion upon such a case so stated; but I can
quote one of far higher value, for Mr. J. G. Hubbard, who is a profound
authority, says, in his letter in the _Times_ of September 4th, 1869:—

    “This inaccuracy of our Mint assays was pointed out by Mr.
    Seyd in his intelligent and well-informed letter of the
    20th ult., and I can corroborate his observations by my own
    experience of sovereigns sent to Russia, where the Mint,
    more exact than our own, ranked sovereigns at fully ⅛ carat
    grain worse than standard.”

Let us now see what steps are taken by the authorities, and then judge
of their motive for introducing a reform so greatly needed, and which
would never have been attacked had not I unceasingly urged it since
1860. In his Report on European Mints, Mr. C. W. Fremantle says:—

    “I have therefore received with much satisfaction the
    expression of Mr. Roberts’s opinion that the process
    of blanching may, as far as gold coin is concerned,
    be discontinued without detriment to the appearance
    of the coin. _It is this process which leads to the
    deterioration of standard found to exist in gold which has
    been for some length of time in circulation_, and _in
    consequence_ of their Lordships’ decision that light
    gold coin shall FOR THE FUTURE BE RECEIVED BACK BY
    THE MINT FOR RECOINAGE, the question becomes at this
    moment one of PECULIAR IMPORTANCE.”

I have emphasized some of the passages as showing that this decision
is very like that of the unjust judge—not so much from conviction of
right as from the necessity of the case. I do not charge the Mint with
yielding to importunity; but being made to bear the loss, they are
willing to amend that which they _now_ openly admit to have been a
wrong. Why is the opinion of Mr. Roberts quoted? why not some of the
great officials at the Mint? Silence on this head is significant. Mr.
Roberts will hardly desire to claim a discovery which he found in my
last book, for he, too, bought one of the first copies which were sold.
That I may not appear to be claiming that which is not my own, I quote
the words from Mr. Roberts’s report:—

    “It is evident that bars slightly below standard may be
    allowed to pass to the subsequent operations of coining,
    on the assumption, justified by calculation, that the
    blanching would be attended with a sufficient elevation of
    standard to bring the coins within the limits of fineness
    prescribed by law. The _film of soft pure metal_,
    however, _is removed by wear_; and the coins, _when
    remelted, will consequently be found to be below standard
    fineness_.

    “This is a question of some importance NOW that
    the Mint has undertaken the operation of re-coining light
    pieces, and I would recommend, therefore, that the process
    of blanching gold coin should be altogether abolished.”

The italics are my own, and if the words so pointed out be read with
reference to those I have persistently used, there can be but one
conclusion, Mr. Roberts having had but a few months’ experience in the
Mint, notwithstanding Mr. Fremantle’s reliance on his judgment.

As regards the trial of the pyx, useless and mischievously deceptive as
it is shown to be, the Act of Parliament, 33 Victoria, cap. 10, makes
it imperative to give this excuse for a dinner at the Goldsmiths’ Hall
at least once a year. Had the Government assented to the proposition of
Lord Kinnaird, and nominated the Professor of Metallurgy for the time
being in the Royal School of Mines, one of their own officers, and who
at present is the most distinguished of metallurgists, foreman of the
jury, the country could have relied upon the verdict now given honestly
enough; but upon inadequate knowledge, indeed, if the reader will refer
to pages 10-12, it will become clear that so delicate a process as
assaying should be watched by those who can appreciate its refinements,
or its results can possess no judicial value.

I attended the trial of the pyx, which was held on the 17th July,
1860, with an especial view to, and an avowed intention of, publishing
details of the operation. With a desire to further this object Mr. W.
H. Barton, the then Deputy-Master, gave me the following particulars,
and I, for myself, observed that the coin when melted was placed in an
open crucible, without flux, and for part of the time without a cover:
the ingot produced was of a GOOD BLACK colour from the oxidation of the
copper. The objections to such a melting can hardly be exaggerated, and
I am of opinion that however fairly selected—and they were honestly
taken—1·310 ounces is not a sufficient bulk on which to form an opinion
as to the purity of £24,654,849 of gold coin.

     +------+---------------+--------------------+--------------+
     |      |               |                    | Weight of    |
     |      |               |    Value of the    | Pieces taken |
     |Coined| Name of Master|    Coined Money    | from the     |
     |Money.|  when Coin    |       Pyxed.       | Coined Money |
     |      |   was Pyxed.  |                    | for the Pyx. |
     |      |               |                    |              |
     +------+---------------+--------------------+--------------+
     |      |               |     £      _s. d._ |   Ounces.    |
     |      |SIR J. F. W.   |                    |              |
     |      |HERSCHEL, BART.| 2,977,190  12   2  |   1052·200   |
     |Gold  |               |                    |              |
     |      |THOMAS GRAHAM, |                    |              |
     |      |ESQ.           |24,654,849   0   9¼ |   8300·087   |
     +------+---------------+--------------------+--------------+
     |      |SIR J. F. W.   |                    |              |
     |      |HERSCHEL, BART.|   100,450   7   0  |    121·899   |
     |Silver|               |                    |              |
     |      |THOMAS GRAHAM, |                    |              |
     |      |ESQ.           | 2,331,666  19   6  |   2811·543   |
     +------+---------------+--------------------+--------------+


    +------+---------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
    |      |               | Weight of    |             | Weight of     |
    |      |               | Coins taken  | Loss by     | Bullion       |
    |Coined| Name of Master| to melt into | Melting to  | actually      |
    |Money.|  when Coin    | an Ingot for | obtain the  | taken from    |
    |      |   was Pyxed.  | the Assay.   | Ingot.      | the Ingot for |
    |      |               |              |             | the Assay.    |
    +------+---------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
    |      |               |    Ounces.   |   Ounces.   |    Ounces.    |
    |      |SIR J. F. W.   |              |             |               |
    |      |HERSCHEL, BART.|     9·116    |    0·020    |     0·766     |
    |Gold  |               |              |             |               |
    |      |THOMAS GRAHAM, |              |             |               |
    |      |ESQ.           |    51·500    |    0·077    |     1·310     |
    +------+---------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
    |      |SIR J. F. W.   |              |             |               |
    |      |HERSCHEL, BART.|     3·137    |    0·046    |     1·287     |
    |Silver|               |              |             |               |
    |      |THOMAS GRAHAM, |              |             |               |
    |      |ESQ.           |    67·881    |    0·652    |     1·781     |
    +------+---------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+

The authorities of the Mint, having assented to part of my proposition,
have yet stopped half way, and blindly considering that the blanching
_alone_ was the cause of loss to and fictitious value of the coinage,
they will find that their loss is greater now than it was when they
unwisely permitted blanching. I do not point out to them the reason
why—that is now their business; but I confess that I am a little
amazed at Mr. Roberts’s recommendation—one that was given up by the
moneyers before he was born, yet now gravely made by that gentleman in
these words, “I should prefer that in order to prevent needless wear
to the dies, the blanks should be annealed, after every trace of oil
has been removed by washing with the aid of alkali, the utmost care
being taken to avoid oxidation by exposure to air.” One seems to see
Mr. Roberts in the presence of men who would dwell on his instructions
as would a soldier on those of his general, directing the filling of a
copper tube with gold blanks, previously divested of “oil by alkali,”
so as to leave a film of lime soap neatly protecting their surface, and
covering them with powdered charcoal. The tube so filled will be duly
placed in the furnace, duly heated, and duly plunged into the cistern
of cold water by the foreman, who, having taken an insurance ticket
from the Accidental Death Company, feels quite safe, when, suddenly,
a mass of copper and some pounds weight of gold blanks occupy the
space from which it is hoped his head may have retired in time. Quite
seriously, I have seen the cap of a tube blown suddenly off, and the
blanks projected from the tube so plunged into water—from the same
cause that bursts a kitchen boiler when cold water is admitted to one
already red hot—with such violence as would certainly kill a man if he
chanced to be in the line of fire. Do they not at the Mint understand
the true cause of loss? An officer who tells his men to “go and do,”
is not so likely to effect his object as if he were to show them “how
to do” the work required of them; neither “bullying” nor making the
men pay for losses will stop those losses of bullion. Knowledge alone
is power. Knowledge alone can direct. Knowledge alone is required in
the Royal Mint. There are plenty of men there who are most desirous to
carry out any instructions; but, if the bugle give an uncertain sound,
who can obey?

The effect of the annealing having been thus dwelt upon and explained,
I will continue the description of the subsequent operations, stating
what was formerly done and what had better be recurred to till
experience is gained by those who are entrusted with the management of
the Mint. After about three minutes’ boiling in dilute sulphuric acid,
the blanks in their colander were washed under a stream of cold water,
to remove the sulphate of copper and the sulphuric acid from their
surfaces, otherwise these substances would deface the dies used for
coining, as well as give the coin a dirty appearance. From the washing
they were taken to a sieve of sawdust, A, Fig. 16, into which they
were thrown to be dried by friction with the hand. A revolving drum
of brass lined with wood has lately been introduced for this purpose.
The objections to this form of apparatus appear to be that the blanks
get hardened by blows, through falling against each other, lose more
in weight, and become indented on the surface, thus producing a less
perfect coin. It had been wiser to have introduced a sieve with an
eccentric motion, which, if filled with sawdust, would shake that dust
between the blanks and dry each one perfectly, when, by the removal
of a false bottom, the sawdust could be allowed to sift itself from
the blanks by one or two turns of the sieve, and the latter would be
as soft as they invariably were before the introduction of the brass
drum. This would be a matter of importance if, as is to be hoped,
the authorities are induced to abolish the process of annealing and
blanching, for then it would still be necessary to remove the film of
oil which is left on the blanks in the cutting-out process, and this
could be done more quickly and effectively in the proposed sieve than
by _any other process_. The sawdust absorbs the water from the surface
of the blanks just as would a piece of sponge; but the surface is not
all, for it is found that by the removal of the copper the gold on the
face of the blank has been brought almost into the condition known as
_frosted_; it is, in fact, to a small extent, honey-combed. The gold
represents the comb, and the copper the honey, but as the copper is
removed, water takes its place, and has to be dislodged from these
interstices by heat. The blanks, having been partially dried in the
sieve A, are put into the tray B, and from this they were shot into
the colander oven C, which was closed, and then thrust into the heated
chamber D, and twisted gently round and round at intervals during ten
minutes. The blanks were then turned out into a sieve E, by which any
particles of dust were separated; the blanks were finally, by the aid
of the tray B, placed in a bag. The sawdust fell from the sieve A on
to a plate of iron heated by the furnace E, by which it was dried, and
became ready for another operation. The chamber D was heated by a small
furnace beneath it.

[Illustration: Fig. 16.—Drying Room.]

[Illustration: BOULTON’S SCREW-COINING PRESS.

AS USED IN THE ROYAL MINT.]

The blanks, having been thoroughly cleaned after annealing, are taken
to the coining press, which at the present time is, as to efficiency,
about what the old water-wheel is to the steam-engine; yet, as a relic
of the past, it is a magnificent conception. It is perhaps the most
interesting in its work of any of the coining machinery; its action
is truly pleasing to watch, but one must feel that the totally deaf
would enjoy the watching it at work more than do those who are endowed
with the sense of hearing, because the noise of the presses would not
disturb their thoughts. The noise is really painful. In these opinions
Messrs. Fremantle and Napier express entire concurrence. The blanks
taken from the colander oven are each by a single blow at this machine
converted into coins possessing the obverse and reverse impressions,
as well as the _crenated_ edge, which is one of the means employed to
protect the coin from the peculations of the clippers, those enemies to
coin of all ages and all countries, but whose business has departed,
not so much from the crenated edge as from the better balances placed
in the hands of almost every man—certainly within reach of every
man. The crenated edge is known to be no protection against the plan
called “sweating,” and which is effected by shaking the new coins in
bags, when perhaps an ounce of gold may be obtained from 1,000 new
sovereigns. The sovereigns thus treated are passed, and the operator
makes his profit, but the light gold is detected by the balance, not by
the eye. This is not the place to discuss[36] such a question, so that
we pass on to a description of the machine which is used to give the
image and superscription to coins which will be current in accordance
with the law.

The steel engraving illustrates Mr. Boulton’s screw-coining press. The
blank is laid by the automaton hand D on the lower die F; D retires,
and the collar then rises and encloses the blank, while the upper die,
fixed to the main screw of the press by the securing apparatus M, comes
down with a blow estimated to be about forty tons, and, striking the
blank, causes its particles to re-arrange themselves, and to assume
the form given by the engraving on the dies and the crenated collar
which surrounds them;[37] in other words, the plain blank becomes by
one blow a coin in every way complete. The following description will
convey to the reader an explanation of the processes as they arise.
The press having been set at rest, with the fullest space between the
dies, is called _up_—that is to say, the upper die has been raised from
the lower die, and in this position the automaton hand D has conveyed
a blank from the tube E to, and holds it over, the lower die F; upon
the first motion of the press downwards, the eccentric wheel or cam
A causes the lever B, which works on the pivot _a_, to withdraw D by
the pin C. The lever B may be lengthened or shortened at pleasure
by an arrangement against the lower B. The first motion towards the
withdrawal of D causes its finger or hand to open, and to release the
blank, which falls upon the face of the lower die. The opening of the
finger, or hand, is effected by a pin which works in a slit in the
movable finger of D, near to C. The continuation of the motion which
draws back D, causes the rods I, which are carried by the main screw
G, to release the collar K, by the levers J. The collar K, being thus
relieved from downward pressure, rises by the elasticity of the springs
L until it wholly encloses the blank which has been left on the lower
die. The rods I pass through the shoulder of the frame of the press,
and are destined for another service besides that just described; for
the main screw G, which travels through a female screw fixed in the
frame of the press (as may be seen by the dotted lines between G and
H), thereby receives its power to rise or fall upon each part of a
revolution, whereas the upper die must strike the blank a blow just
such as would be struck by a hammer, and without a twisting motion;
therefore that motion of G is lost just below H, where G fits into a
cup suspended rigidly on, and is prevented from twisting by, the rods
I, as shown at N. To the lower part of the cup N is fastened M, which
carries the upper die. So that, just at the moment that the levers J
have permitted the collar to enclose the blank, the upper die reaches
the full force of its blow, and comes upon the blank. The force of the
blow, by converting the blank into a coin, causes an instantaneous
recoil of the screw G, which is assisted in its rise by a kind of
balance just equal to its weight. The nature of this arrangement
will be better understood by reference to the engraving, where the
funnel-shaped tube O is seen to be traversed by a rod X, represented by
dotted lines, and which terminates in the head of the screw G near the
lowest X; the opening in the funnel being for the convenience of fixing
this rod to G. At Y is a swivel, where the twisting motion of X, given
by G, is lost. X is connected at its upper end with a balanced beam
W, the other end of which is in communication with the chamber V by a
rod which carries a piston working in V. The chamber V is not wholly
exhausted, but is in connection by a tube with the partially-exhausted
chamber T, an arrangement which, while it becomes a counterpoise to the
weight of the press, is used as a regulator of the blow to be given,
so that it is quite possible to coin blanks of differing denominations
by the agency of this chamber without altering the vacuum in the large
vessel T.

[Footnote 36: See pages 123-125.]

[Footnote 37: See page 80.]

The motive power of the press, that which brings down the die with
force, is gained by the pressure of the atmosphere upon a piston in
the cylinder R, and is conveyed to the press as follows:—The lever
P is fixed firmly on to the trumpet-shaped tube O, and is connected
by a series of rods, Q, with the piston in R, from which the tube S
communicates with T. The large chamber T is kept in a constant state of
partial exhaustion by the action of a thirty horse-power steam-engine,
through a well-made iron tube of considerable length. The boy who works
the press starts it by first pulling a cord _f_, terminating in the
box in which he sits; the cord _f_, by its spring _n_, releases the
valve _d_ at _i_, and permits it to act when required; he next pulls
the cord _g_, which by its loose lever opens the valve _j_, through
which the atmosphere passes freely across the bottom of the piston in
the cylinder R into the tube S, and so into the partially-exhausted
chamber T; this would cause a rush of air through the valve _d_, but
_d_, at the instant of its release by the line _f_, is closed by a
spring. Atmospheric air expands instantly if the pressure be removed
from it, so that immediately on the opening of the valve _j_, the air
beneath the piston in R expands, and part of it, entering the chamber
T, produces an unequal pressure upon the upper and lower sides of the
piston, and the result is that the piston is forced down by the weight
of an atmosphere it is unable to support. By the time that the piston
has completed its stroke, the rod _c_ has brought a button, which it
carries on its farther side, and situated at _k_, down so low that it
strikes the lever _l_, and closes the valve _j_, thus stopping the
expansion of air below the piston, while the button _m_ has at the same
instant permitted the falling of the lever _e_, and the consequent
opening of the valve _d_; when the recoil of the screw G takes place,
the piston in its descent expels (by compression) the small amount of
air remaining in the cylinder R through _d_, thus opening it so that
air can rush in at this valve and permit the rising of the piston. The
rising of the piston insures the removal of the button at _k_, and so
soon as _k_ is removed, _l_ is forced up by a spring at its farther
end, and opens the valve _j_, thus giving the means of consecutive
action to the press. If it be desired to stop the press, the boy
loosens the line _f_, and so permits the spring _n_ to keep the valve
_d_ permanently open. The boy, before supplying blanks to the tube E,
piles them on an iron block _b_, and flattens each blank in the pile by
one or two blows of a hammer on the top of the pile.

In “European Mints” are some apt words, with which I conclude my
remarks on this great invention of Mr. Boulton—great beyond compare
at the period of its birth, great beyond admiration if its results be
estimated faithfully and gratefully by a thoughtful people. We in our
day are indebted to Mr. Boulton for his press; yet its age has passed,
and as a park loses its timber, so must our Mint lose—sorrowfully
to all who love the past—its glorious mementos of men who dwell in
history to make present men mere manikins. Original minds are not
now tolerated; subservience if you will; but invention—not if a man
values or depends upon his office. Mr. Napier says truly, “The press
just mentioned and its apparatus are complicated, scattered, and
unhandy, reaching into three apartments, and require a foundation of
great solidity, and a special construction of building. The noise and
vibration accompanying their performance are disturbing to a greater
extent than in the case of the blank cutting screw press to which
reference has been made.”

It has been conceived that coins are made of two discs of metal
soldered together, and that the crenated edge is intended to hide
the join. This notion has arisen from the occasional appearance of a
cracked coin in circulation; the true explanation of the cracked coin
being that at the time of pouring the fluid metal into the mould, an
air bubble has been enclosed, and this air bubble has rent the fillet
asunder at the time of its being rolled; but the separation does not
exhibit itself until the final annealing, when it is too late for its
discovery: recently, however, it has become a custom to ring the coined
gold before it goes into circulation, and thus to detect and stop such
defective pieces.

[Illustration: Fig. 17.—Petition Crown.]

[Illustration: Fig. 18.—Inscription on edge of the Petition Crown.]

[Illustration: Fig. 19.—Fillet and Collar.]

The origin of the crenated, commonly called the “milled,” edge (thus
giving the name of the instrument to the substance operated upon),
was the desire to make any clipping of the coin easily noticeable.
Many devices were used, but John Evelyn suggested the motto, _Decus
et tutamen_,[38] and this was retained for some coins until 1854. The
crenated edge is now produced, without exception, and it is really
the best, as admitting of easier detection if counterfeited. The
distinctive marking of the edges of coins is of very early date, and
was performed by various species of hand labour, each in its turn easy
of falsification. At length this was effected by machinery, until
finally the coin was formed by striking the blank while enclosed in a
collar. The use of the collar, and its first invention, are somewhat
doubtful; Mr. Hawkins, however, appears to have established the fact
of its having been used at so early a date as William the Conqueror
(_vide_ “Ruding,” vol. i. p. 158); but the earliest coin which gives a
clear notion of the use of a collar is the celebrated Petition Crown
of Simon, which he coined for and presented to Charles II. Fig. 17
represents this very highly-prized coin, one of which was sold a few
years since for £275. This wood engraving is by Messrs. Cheshire and
Dickenson, from a fac-simile drawing taken by Mr. E. S. Gibson; it is
an exact copy of the coin in the Mint collection. It is surrounded
on its edge by a petition in raised letters, of which Fig. 18 is a
fac-simile. The late Mr. W. H. Barton thought that this coin must have
been struck while surrounded by a collar, or it could not have been
produced at all. This opinion induced a further search for the collar
which was used, and which is believed to be in existence, and to have
been seen by men now living,—it is probably amongst the collection of
curiosities of coining left by Mr. W. H. Barton. Mr. Barton suggested
that the petition must have been engraved on a fillet of steel, which
was then coiled up in a collar, as indicated by Fig. 19, and that the
blank to be coined was then placed in the coiled fillet of steel.
The coin having been struck, the fillet with the coin was knocked
out from the collar, just as medals are now knocked out; and, once
free, the fillet sprang off from the coin. This conjecture was so
strongly confirmed by minute examination, that it may be interesting
to represent the mode of operation by means of Fig. 19, where A is
the engraved fillet coiled up and just ready to drop into the collar
B; the opening C which is left is copied from the petition on the
coin, which shows the metal to have been forced through this part of
the fillet, where its ends, which were cut to fit each other, did not
quite meet. The head of this protruding part has been filed off, the
file marks still remaining visible on this part of the edge of the
coin. This fact renders Mr. Barton’s conjecture almost a certainty.
The coin weighs 517·10 grains; its average diameter is on the obverse
1·5784 inches, and on the reverse 1·5837 inches, both measures having
been taken on the extreme edge. The petition is somewhat sunken and
rounding inwards; if therefore it be measured from its lowest part,
the centre of the edge of the coin, the diameter of the coin is 1·5741
inches, giving 0·0043 inch which must be worn away before the top of
the letters of the petition can be touched in ordinary wear; thus the
coin would circulate for centuries, and its petition still remain
untouched. The coin being 0·0053 inch greater in diameter on its
reverse than on its obverse side, admitted of its being more readily
punched out from its collar, which was doubtless cut to admit of this
design being carried out. The engraving on this coin is the cause of
its great value, Simon having so perfectly carried out the idea that
coins should represent sculpture, that this specimen stands wholly
unrivalled as a coin. It has led to the impression that so good artists
are not to be found at this day as flourished then. The fact is that
artists seek such employment as remunerates them for their study; and
until their conditions of employment are satisfied we must abstain
from the desire to see coins such as were produced in ages past, and
which gave an honourable name to the country producing them. It may be
hoped that this means of preserving the history of the age in which so
much has been done may be continued. It was probably from this collar
of Simon’s that Sir Isaac Newton gained his idea for that which he is
said to have invented. The collar of the present day leaves nothing
to desire, for it gives so distinctive a mark to the edge of the coin
that any mutilation must be detected; while forgers are unable to
produce coins to imitate those struck in it, unless they use the same
means, which would incur too great an expense. The coinages of Victor
Emmanuel illustrate beautifully how easily coins may be struck, so
that, after years of wear, they still represent the original more than
creditably. To take an instance, a bronze coin, 5 centesimi, has been
purposely subjected, for nine years, to more than ordinarily rough
usage. This coin is little worn; the whole of the features are still
perfect, except that the hair is worn off above the ears, and part of
the moustache is removed. The secret of success in this coin appears to
be that the ear and adjacent parts are slightly sunken, while the whole
of the work and inscription are kept well below the protecting edges,
and there is not an indistinct figure or letter on the coin.

[Footnote 38: In Evelyn’s “Discourse of Medals,” 1697, p. 224, occurs
the following passage:—“Mr. _Slingsby_, to whom I suggested the
_Decus & Tutamen_ out of a _Viniet_ in _Cardinel de Richlieu’s Greek
Testament_, printed at the _Louvre_, hindering his intended Addition
(_in armis_), which neither would have become the _impress_, nor stood
gracefully in the circle.”]

In the British Mint false notions lead its authorities to believe that
apparent saving is real economy; so far from such being the case, if
our coins carried a better design they would not only look better, but
wear longer, and still maintain their weight. While it is my intention
to allude in another place to the large loss occasioned by our silver
coinage, I submit to the reader the facts arrived at by Mr. William
Miller, the late chief cashier in the Bank of England, who devoted
great attention to the rate of wear of coins. He found that coins which
had lost their protecting edges wear far more rapidly than those with
a protecting edge, and showed me tabular statements demonstrating that
fact. It was the intention of Mr. Miller to publish these tabulated
results. However, his painfully early removal has, I fear, prevented
that benefit being given to the public. His brother has no knowledge of
their having been published; but Mr. George Forbes, the chief cashier
in the Bank of England, has courteously given me a table closely
allied to those of which I speak, and another to which I shall refer
hereafter. I now, with permission, print this table, showing the rates
at which coins of the different reigns have worn, and which rates all
tend to prove clearly Mr. Miller’s opinion to have been correctly
formed. The fact of the increasing rate of wear would appear to be
explained by the larger surface exposed to friction by the removal of
the protecting edge. When a little later I come to the discussion, on
page 155, of the second table, I shall have occasion to say a few more
words on this, which seems to find a fitting place on the preceding
page, but contains matter which will cause too great a digression if
dwelt upon now.

A STATEMENT SHOWING THE RESULTS OF SOME EXPERIMENTS MADE UPON A LARGE
NUMBER OF SILVER COINS, OF WHICH 169,000 WERE EXAMINED SINGLY, WITH THE
VIEW OF ASCERTAINING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SILVER CIRCULATION,
AND THE LOSS BY WEAR.

It should be observed that the average of loss by wear in a century,
given in the Table, is founded upon the wear which the several coinages
have undergone up to the present time; but as the rate at which a coin
wears is an increasing rate, it is obvious that the actual loss in a
century would be much greater than that here given:—

    +------------+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |            |  Amount Coined since    |  Withdrawn | Remaining in |
    |            |          1816.          |    from    | Circulation. |
    |            |                         |Circulation.|              |
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
    |            |            |      £     |      £     | £            |
    |            | Victoria   |    117,414 |            |      117,414 |
    |CROWNS      | William IV |            |            |              |
    |            | George IV  |    140,726 |            |      140,726 |
    |            | George III |    321,750 |            |      321,750 |
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
    |            | Victoria   |  1,043,251 |            |    1,043,251 |
    |HALF-CROWNS | William IV |    380,556 |            |      380,556 |
    |            | George IV  |  1,113,848 |            |    1,113,848 |
    |            | George III |  2,387,088 |    252,870 |    2,134,218 |
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
    |FLORINS     | Victoria   |  1,541,161 |            |    1,541,161 |
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
    |            | Victoria   |  2,609,504 |        490 |    2,609,014 |
    |SHILLINGS   | William IV |    412,038 |     49,944 |      362,094 |
    |            | George IV  |    878,922 |    350,622 |      528,300 |
    |            | George III |  3,304,224 |    867,674 |    2,436,550 |
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
    |            | Victoria   |  1,182,339 |        298 |    1,182,041 |
    |SIXPENCES   | William IV |    281,994 |     34,614 |      247,380 |
    |            | George IV  |     81,378 |     47,738 |       33,640 |
    |            | George III |    919,314 |    312,250 |      607,064 |
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
    |            |           £| 16,715,507 |  1,916,500 |   14,799,007 |
    |            |            |            |            |              |
    |            |            |            |            |              |
    |            |            |            |            |              |
    |            |            |            |            |              |
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+

    LEGEND:
       (A) = Average of _Loss by_ wear in 100 _Years_,
             at the rate at which the Coinages of the several reigns
             have worn, up to the present time.
       (B) = Loss by wear on Amount withdrawn.
       (C) = Loss by wear on Amount in Circulation.
       (D) = Number of Coins examined singly.
    +------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
    |            |            |   (A)   |  (B)  |   (C)   |  (D)  |
    |            |            |         |       |         |       |
    |            |            |         |       |         |       |
    +------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
    |            |            |Per Cent.|    £  |     £   |       |
    |            | Victoria   |   5·50  |       |         |       |
    |CROWNS      | William IV |         |       |         |       |
    |            | George IV  |   7·04  |       |   15,776|  4,000|
    |            | George III |   7·46  |       |         |       |
    +------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
    |            | Victoria   |  14·17  |       |         |       |
    |HALF-CROWNS | William IV |  15·30  |       |         |       |
    |            | George IV  |  15·80  | 13,546|  250,270| 20,000|
    |            | George III |  15·92  |       |         |       |
    +------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
    |FLORINS     | Victoria   |  15·00  |       |   10,147|  5,000|
    +------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
    |            | Victoria   |  26·55  |       |         |       |
    |SHILLINGS   | William IV |  26·82  |       |         |       |
    |            | George IV  |  28·74  |167,684|  413,044| 80,000|
    |            | George III |  29·96  |       |         |       |
    +------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
    |            | Victoria   |  37·00  |       |         |       |
    |SIXPENCES   | William IV |  39·00  |       |         |       |
    |            | George IV  |  44·80  | 72,420|  221,380| 60,000|
    |            | George III |  45·00  |       |         |       |
    +------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
    |            |            |         |       |  910,617|169,000|
    |            |            |         |253,650|  253,650|       |
    |            |            |         |       +---------+       |
    |            |            |         |      £|1,164,267 total  |
    |            |            |         |       |  loss by wear.  |
    +------------+------------+---------+-------+-----------------+
                                                        W. MILLER.
    BANK OF ENGLAND, _December, 1860_.

As further showing the rate of wear, I append a note which I have
copied from the eighth volume of the _Journal of the Society of Arts_,
written by Mr. John Miller, to whose courtesy I have often been
indebted, and who shows that the general rate of wear is rather higher
than would appear from the above facts, for his figures prove a loss
by wear to the extent of £4 11_s._ 8_d._ on a hundred sovereigns in a
hundred years, as will be seen in his letter which follows:—

                     “BANK OF ENGLAND, GOLD WEIGHING ROOM,
                                   “_29th August, 1859_.

    “SIR,—According to your wish I collected one hundred
     sovereigns of the date one thousand eight hundred and twenty,
     which, on weighing, I find have lost in value one pound six
     shillings and sevenpence.

    “As these sovereigns were taken from parcels sent in from different
     places, and at different times, during a long period, I think the
     experiment is as likely to give a correct estimate of the loss
     which the coin undergoes by wear as any that could be tried.

                                “I have the honour to be, Sir,
                                      “Your very obedient servant,
                                     (Signed)       “J. MILLER.

    “A. Latham, Esq., Deputy Governor.”

That I may convey as accurate information as possible I also give the
following tables from the same volume of the Society of Arts. These
tables seem so clear as to render detailed explanation unnecessary.
It would appear that coins wear pretty much in proportion to the kind
of usage they receive; for Professor Jevons, in his pamphlet “On the
Condition of the Metallic Currency of the United Kingdom,” shows
indisputably that at the West End of London they suffer less than at
the East End, where they are thrown with force on rough and often sandy
benches while at the West they are treated with more consideration.

RESULTS OF SOME CAREFUL EXAMINATIONS MADE IN 1858 OF LIGHT GOLD AND
SILVER COIN OF THE EARLY YEARS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF COINAGE, 1817
TO 1825, TAKING 1822 AS THE MEAN OF THOSE YEARS.

    LEGEND:
       (A) = Mint Weight of each Coin.
       (B) = Mint Weight of £100 worth.
       (C) = Weight of £100 worth of old Coin.
       (D) = Loss in 36 Years, 1822 as the Mean.
    +---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
    |               |   (A)   |  (B)    |   (C)   |   (D)   |
    |               |         |         |         |         |
    +---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
    |               | Ounces. | Ounces. | Ounces. | Ounces. |
    |Sovereign      |  ·25682 |  25·682 |  25·360 |    ·322 |
    |Half-Sovereign |  ·12841 |  25·682 |  25·070 |    ·612 |
    |Half-Crown     |   ·4545 | 363·636 | 345·850 |  17·786 |
    |Shilling       |   ·1818 | 363·636 | 315·575 |  48·061 |
    |Sixpence       |   ·0909 | 363·636 | 296·950 |  66·686 |
    +---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

The above data applied to 100 years give the following results:—

    LEGEND:
       (A) = Mint Weight of £100 worth.
       (B) = Loss of Weight of £100 worth in a Century.
       (C) = Loss of Value in a Century.
       (D) = Loss of Weight of each piece in a Century.
       (E) = Loss of Volume from 1,000 parts in a Century.
    +----------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+---------+
    |                |         |         |        |         |         |
    |                |   (A)   |   (B)   |  (C)   |   (D)   |  (E)    |
    |                |         |         |        |         |         |
    +----------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+---------+
    |                | Ounces. | Ounces. |   £ m. | Ounces. |         |
    |Sovereigns      |  25·682 |    ·895 |  3·485 |  ·00895 |    35·  |
    |Half-Sovereigns |  25·682 |   1·700 |  6·620 |  ·00850 |    66·  |
    |Half-Crowns     | 363·636 |  49·406 | 13·587 |  ·06176 |   136·  |
    |Shillings       | 363·636 | 133·503 | 36·713 |  ·06675 |   367·  |
    |Sixpences       | 363·636 | 185·239 | 50·941 |  ·04631 |   509·  |
    +----------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+---------+
                                                    (Signed) W. MILLER.
    BANK OF ENGLAND, _8th October, 1859_.

In this interesting table Mr. Miller curiously shows that the loss of
value and of volume bear equal relations to a coin, from which I infer
that he went so far as to measure determinately the amount of water
displaced by such coins as are referred to in these very valuable
researches; that he possessed a rigidly honest mind I know from
occurrences in my own dealings with him, and therefore I am sure his
figures are the results of actual experiment, and so, entirely reliable.

These facts show that before it is determined to withdraw our coins
when they have reached the age of eighteen years, the Mint authorities
should produce coins with a more perfect protecting edge, as was done
at my suggestion for shillings and sixpences, and then by abolishing
the annealing of blanks give to our coins a medium hardness so that
they will be able to bear comparison with the Italian as regards wear
and tear, and retain a juvenile appearance after the exercise, instead
of their present smooth worn surface.

The method of manufacturing the collar with the interior crenated
circle, which is employed to give the protecting edge to the finished
coin, is very simple:—A piece of flat, soft steel is bored with a hole
of the required diameter, and is fixed in a lathe so that it may be
made to revolve rapidly at pleasure. While the partly-formed collar
is revolving in the lathe, the slide-rest is made to place a kind of
cogged wheel, carried on a rod of steel, into the hole which has been
bored; by a screw in the slide-rest, the cogged wheel is brought down
until it touches the inside of the partly-formed collar; at the moment
of contact, the cogged wheel is turned round by the friction of the
collar against it, and its continued pressure upon the inside of the
collar causes the latter to receive an imprint from the cogged wheel.
When the imprinting is complete, the collar is hardened, and it is then
fit for use at the coining press. The system of manufacture is supposed
to be the most perfect; but it is manifest that no two collars are
produced of exactly the same internal diameter; hence the coin issuing
from each collar of the same denomination must, as it does, vary in
diameter; but this is of small consequence, the difference being so
minute that it is not detected unless by very accurate measurement;
indeed, coins coming from the same collar must vary in size, since
the collar wears away by use to a certain extent. The diameter and
consequent thickness of a coin are not determined by law, but by its
suitableness for the public to whom it is to be issued; consequently
the usual mode of arriving at the diameter of a coin is to make it of
such a size that it will emit the most musical sound it is capable of.
This rule was not sustained in the case of the small florin—better
known as the “godless florin;” hence, coupled with the omission of the
_Dei Gratia_[39] in its superscription, the coin fell into disfavour.

The following measurements, taken from a set of proof coins of the
present reign, will convey an idea of the probable size of any coin
of the realm; but from the reason before stated, a man need not be
disappointed should he find the diameters differ from any he may
examine by an accurate gauge. While stating the diameters (which never
vary beyond a few thousandths of an inch), it is thought proper to give
the legal weight and legal tender[40] of each denomination of coin
current in Great Britain:—

[Footnote 39: _Dei Gratia_ was also omitted on some of the coins of
George I.]

[Footnote 40: 33rd Vict., c. 10, cl. 4.]

    +------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
    |  Denomination of Coin. | Diameter. |  Weight in Troy.  |
    +------------------------+-----------+----------+--------+
    |                        |  Inches.  |  Grains. | Ounces.|
    |Gold.    Sovereign      |   0·8680  | 123·2744 | 0·2568 |
    |         Half-Sovereign |   0·7622  |  61·6372 | 0·1284 |
    +------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
    |         Crown          |   1·5048  | 436·3636 | 0·9090 |
    |         Half-Crown     |   1·2714  | 218·1818 | 0·4545 |
    |         Florin         |   1·1826  | 174·5454 | 0·3636 |
    |         Shilling       |   0·9296  |  87·2727 | 0·1818 |
    |         Sixpence       |   0·7648  |  43·6363 | 0·0909 |
    |Silver.  Fourpence      |   0·6456  |  29·0909 | 0·0606 |
    |         Threepence     |   0·6383  |  21·8181 | 0·4545 |
    |            _Maundy._   |           |          |        |
    |         Fourpence      |   0·6957  |  29·0909 | 0·0605 |
    |         Threepence     |   0·6383  |  21·8181 | 0·4545 |
    |         Twopence       |   0·5294  |  14·5454 | 0·0303 |
    |         Penny          |   0·4388  |   7·2727 | 0·0151 |
    +------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
    |         Penny          |   1·3502  | 291·6666 | 0·6076 |
    |Copper.  Halfpenny      |   1·1155  | 145·8333 | 0·3038 |
    |         Farthing       |   0·8575  |  72·9166 | 0·1519 |
    |         Half-Farthing  |   0·6953  |  36·4583 | 0·0759 |
    +------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
    |         Penny          |   1·2000  | 145·8333 | 0·3038 |
    |Bronze.  Halfpenny      |   1·0000  |  87·5000 | 0·1822 |
    |         Farthing       |   0·8000  |  43·7500 | 0·0911 |
    +------------------------+-----------+----------+--------+

    +------------------------+-------------------------------------+
    |  Denomination of Coin. |         Legal Tender.               |
    +------------------------+-------------------------------------+
    |                        |     To the value of—               |
    |Gold.    Sovereign      |    The highest sum                  |
    |         Half-Sovereign |         known.                      |
    +------------------------+-------------------------------------+
    |         Crown          |                                     |
    |         Half-Crown     |                                     |
    |         Florin         |                                     |
    |         Shilling       |                                     |
    |         Sixpence       |                                     |
    |Silver.  Fourpence      |     Forty shillings                 |
    |         Threepence     |        sterling.                    |
    |            _Maundy._   |                                     |
    |         Fourpence      |                                     |
    |         Threepence     |                                     |
    |         Twopence       |                                     |
    |         Penny          |                                     |
    +------------------------+-------------------------------------+
    |         Penny          | One shilling sterlg.   Proclaimed   |
    |Copper.  Halfpenny      | Sixpence        ”        illegal    |
    |         Farthing       | Sixpence        ”      since 31st   |
    |         Half-Farthing  | Sixpence        ”    December, 1869.|
    +------------------------+-------------------------------------+
    |         Penny          | One shilling    ”                   |
    |Bronze.  Halfpenny      | One shilling    ”                   |
    |         Farthing       | One shilling    ”                   |
    +------------------------+-------------------------------------+

The press for coining is still defective: one of its defects is the
production of imperfect coins, of which Fig. 20 is a common type. It
is produced by the failure of the automaton hand to place the blank
exactly on the lower die, so that the collar, when it rises, fails to
enclose it; hence, when the upper die descends to strike the blank,
only that part of it which is over the die is impressed, the collar
being forced down by the pressure of the other part of the blank upon
its upper surface. On other occasions the automaton hand drops its
blank too early, or fails to bring it forward at all: on such occasions
it sometimes receives a severe pinch, and retires with an impression
produced on its end by the dies; and on either of these occurrences,
the dies may come forcibly together, and disfigure each other, so that
the next coin which is produced carries with it on each side a faint
impression of both dies as well as its proper impression. This could
never happen if the levers which carry the weights Z on the screw of
the press performed actually the whole of the functions for which they
are designed. A contrivance has been adapted to the coining presses
to stop their action should the automaton hand fail to bring forward
a blank for coining. This, after months spent in attempting its use,
is set aside because it increases the evil it was intended to remedy.
Fig. 21 is a representation of an imperfect half-crown which had been
submitted twice to the process of coining, and by oversight passed into
circulation in 1818. It had been current, and was taken in ordinary
change in July, 1861; it is much worn, but on each side may be clearly
traced the impressions of the obverse and of the reverse, singular
effects being produced where the crown of the reverse fits so neatly
on to the back of the head of his Majesty; and where, on the obverse,
the shield displaces his Majesty’s face. This could hardly have been
an accidental occurrence; it would seem that the workman of the press
must have struck the coin properly, and then taken some pains to fit it
into a larger collar and give it a second blow. If the collars were all
of precisely the same size such an act would be impossible; but there
are sufficient variations in the size of the collars to admit of this
explanation. Some accidental productions have been called by ignorant
writers _incused coins_, and conjectural histories of them have been
published; when, in fact, their history is simply this: it so chanced
that the coin last struck remained upon the upper die, and gave its
lower-side impression to the upper side of the next blank which was
coined. This is no uncommon occurrence, and the effect of it would be
that such a coin would have the same device on each side; but of course
one would present the design in relief and the other in intaglio.

[Illustration: Fig. 20.—Brockage.]

[Illustration: Fig. 21.—Brockage.]

Such being some of the imperfections of Mr. Boulton’s coining press,
it may perhaps be assumed that they can be readily overcome; but I am
not aware of the existence of any press which is free from them. The
French press has, however, many advantages, and the Mint authorities
have recently had a new one made, from which extraordinary results
were anticipated, but it now appears that this is simply another
improvement of the usual type, and that it has cost about £1,500 and
remains on the premises of the manufacturers.

As the coined money issues from the press it is collected in trays
and examined; all imperfect coins, curiously termed “brockages,” are
picked out; and the good coins weighed into drafts of 701 sovereigns,
equal in weight to about 180 ounces: these are at present sent to the
weighing room, where they are examined for imperfect coins by passing
over a kind of blanket, so arranged on a series of rollers that each
coin lying on its surface can be seen as the blanket revolves. The
blanket covered with coins is carried round a set of rollers, and thus
produces them on the upper side of a lower blanket, when the reverse
side can be seen. The effect of this machine is to worry the eye, if
constant watching be enforced, for no one can watch a string of coins
in continuous motion _and see each one_. A very minute alteration of
this machine would cause it to stop for a few seconds at intervals, and
during that stoppage the accustomed eye could readily detect and select
the imperfect coin.

After this overlooking, the coins are rung as blanks used to be, and
then weighed separately, _all_ the rejected going to the melting-pot,
by which a waste[41] of 50 per cent. is incurred at the extreme end of
an elaborate process; but this unwise course, it is to be hoped, will
soon be abandoned when its expensive and perfectly useless extravagance
is considered. After the various operations of the weighing room the
coin is collected and weighed into separate bags, each containing 701
sovereigns; the exact weight of the contents of each bag is noted;
and, the bags having been placed in a truck, are taken to the Mint
Office, where they undergo what is called _pyxing_, which is simply the
selecting from each and every bag a pound weight, from which two coins
are taken; each coin is weighed and its weight recorded. Of these coins
one is placed in the hands of the assayer to determine its value as
to per-centage of gold, and the other is sealed in a packet, which is
placed in a _pyx_ for the trial of THE PYX at Westminster—an ancient
process now useless, because any skilled man can detect by assay a
deterioration of the coin. These particulars having been taken, the
coin is in due course delivered to the officers of the Bank of England,
who conduct it in amounts of about £140,000 to the Bank in a waggon.

The law enacts that 20 lbs. weight troy of standard or crown gold shall
be made into 934·50 sovereigns, and this proportion gives the means of
determining the theoretical weight of one sovereign; for if the 20 lbs.
troy weight produce 934·50[42] coins, it is only necessary to divide by
that number the number of grains in 20 lbs. troy, and the quotient will
represent the weight of a single sovereign, viz., 123·2744783306581059
troy grains; therefore the journey of 701 sovereigns should weigh
180·032102728731942215 troy ounces, and a million 256821·829855377
troy ounces, equal to 7·8618927506797 tons avoirdupois; hence the War
Indemnity of France will weigh 1572·37855 tons.

[Footnote 41: See pages 42-45, 108, 109.]

[Footnote 42: See pages 73, 123, 124.]

Since the coins of a people must represent food in proportion as they
are of specific weight, it is to be regretted that the law does not
fix the weight (with a remedy) of the individual sovereign, instead of
fixing the number of coins in 20 lbs. weight, and giving a remedy[43]
of 12 grains on the pound troy. Irrespective of law, the practice of
the Royal Mint is to apportion the estimated amount of remedy (or
latitude for error) to each coin; but in America the pound weight alone
is studied; hence the individual coins vary so considerably in weight
that it pays as a commercial speculation to select the heavy coins, and
to sell them as bullion; thus leaving the light coins in circulation,
to the dishonour of the nation, because if a man take 1,000 American
gold coins to the Bank of England they will not be received at their
nominal value, but as bullion; hence the loss becomes personal, and so
the coins of America cannot, and do not, stand on a par with those of
England.

[Footnote 43: See pages 39, 73, 124.]

The paragraph above has stood unaltered since the first edition, and I
reproduce it because its history is perhaps curious. Mr. Graham, soon
after I entered the Mint, commenced urging reasons why the system of
weighing coins individually, which he considered expensive, should be
abandoned; as well as I was able I met his proposition by firm but
adverse arguments, until at last he “ordered me to omit the weighing
of individual pieces, and to _pound the work_ as is directed by law.”
I therefore asked him, as the matter was a very grave one, to _write
the order_. This he refused to do, and thought it hard of me to require
a written order, and so the matter dropped; when, however, Mr. John
Graham was appointed, Mr. Graham told me that he could now carry out
his wishes without a “written order.” In the meantime he had asked me
“to write a treatise on coining for Tomlinson’s Cyclopædia—in fact,
I have already referred Mr. Tomlinson to you, and he will call; your
difficulty will be to compress your information into a sufficiently
small space.” After so long an attempt to preserve the accuracy of our
coinage, I felt unwilling to allow such an opportunity to pass, and
therefore placed my opinions in print, and thereby gave Mr. Graham so
deep an offence that he refused to place my book in the Mint library,
although I gave him a copy for that purpose; it was still absent from
those shelves when I left the Mint. In August, 1864, Mr. John Graham,
acting under the “Master’s orders,” directed “that the contents of only
one bag in three should be weighed,” and this was carried out till
pieces which bore the device of florins found their way to the Bank of
England, and amongst them were found some of the intrinsic value of
1_s._ 6_d._, while others reached so high as 2_s._ 9_d._ Mr. Graham was
greatly distressed about this occurrence, and, notwithstanding his
brother’s position, directed me to stop this new system at once. He
then attributed the innovation to myself, and blamed me for all that
had happened. I therefore told him that he, and he alone, was to blame,
for I had persistently refused to do it unless fortified with a written
order. This caused, as I felt at the time, our final separation; but
had I been willing to accept blame which belonged, as I told him, to
himself first, and in a lesser degree to his brother, he would have
made it a fair ground for my removal from the Mint—a result he had
earnestly endeavoured to effect. I was so far free from blame that I
was actually absent from the Mint part of the time, and during the
remainder refused to enter the room where the blanks were cut, such
action on my part resulting from a desire to protest firmly, by deed as
I had done by word, against what I knew to be a fatal step. The wisdom
of my proposition to apportion the remedy to the individual piece
was so apparent that the Legislature incorporated it in the Act 33
Victoria, cap. 10, and as detailed information may be of special value
to many, I quote the first schedule to that Act on the opposite page.

That others concur in my thus claiming the origination of the
apportionment of the remedy to the individual piece, is, I think,
clearly demonstrated by the subjoined letter, which appeared in the
Money Market and City Intelligence of the _Times_, on Thursday, March
10, 1870.

“The following relates to the coinage question:—

     “_March 8th._

    “SIR,—In your article of this day you draw attention to
      Mr. Ansell’s new work, ‘The Royal Mint,’ which I have studied
      carefully. I shall feel obliged if you will permit me, through you,
      to direct the attention of members of Parliament to the suggestion
      thrown out by Mr. Ansell in his ‘Treatise on Coining’ in 1862, and
      repeated in the book above alluded to.

    “In the New Coinage Bill, which is to be discussed on the 10th inst.,
     the Chancellor of the Exchequer would appear to have adopted in part
     the proposal of Mr. Ansell, to make the remedy on the individual
     coin, instead of on the pound weight of coins, as is now the law.
     Mr. Ansell gives very strong reasons, besides the expense, why
     0·2568 grain should be enforced as the legal remedy on the
     individual coin, and surely, while the legislature is invited by
     Mr. Lowe to adopt 0·20 grain, it would be wise that those reasons
     should be considered, for the Act, once obtained, will be difficult
     to repeal, and the Mint seems capable of improvement.
                    “I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
                                               “NUMMORUM FAMULUS.”

I may add that Mr. Fremantle has purchased a copy of my last impression
for the Mint Library.

The coinage of silver is precisely the same in every detail as the
coinage of gold; but there are one or two points that require to be
dwelt upon. Weight for weight, silver is more bulky than gold, and is
coined in larger quantities; hence it has become important to expedite
its coining by every means. Thus, in the process of annealing, it is
simply placed unprotected, except by a lid of iron, upon an iron truck,
and run into the annealing furnaces, from which, after twenty minutes,
it is withdrawn and plunged at once into cold water. In the annealing
of the silver blanks it is important to have the copper of the alloyed
metal removed from their surface; this is effected by annealing the
blanks for from seven to ten minutes in open pans, when the copper
becomes oxidised, and is removed by the process of blanching, described
under the coining of gold.[44]

[Footnote 44: See pages 48, 49.]

    FIRST SCHEDULE.

    +--------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
    |                    |   Standard Weight.   | Least Current Weight.|
    |  Denomination of   +-----------+----------+-----------+----------+
    |       Coin.        | Imperial  |  Metric  | Imperial  |   Metric |
    |                    |  Weight.  | Weight.  |  Weight.  |   Weight.|
    |                    |  Grains.  |  Grams.  |  Grains.  |   Grams. |
    +--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+
    |Gold:               |           |          |           |          |
    |  Five Pound        | 616·37239 | 39·94028 | 612·50000 | 39·68935 |
    |  Two Pound         | 246·54895 | 15·97611 | 245·00000 |  5·87574 |
    |  Sovereign         | 123·27447 |  7·98805 | 122·50000 |  7·93787 |
    |  Half-Sovereign    |  61·63723 |  3·99402 |  61·12500 |  3·96083 |
    |                    |           |          |           |          |
    +--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+
    |Silver:             |           |          |           |          |
    |  Crown             | 436·36363 | 28·27590 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Half-Crown        | 218·18181 | 14·13795 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Florin            | 174·54545 | 11·31036 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Shilling          |  87·27272 |  5·65518 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Sixpence          |  43·63636 |  2·82759 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Groat or Fourpence|  29·09090 |  1·88506 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Threepence        |  21·81818 |  1·41379 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Twopence          |  14·54545 |  0·94253 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Penny             |   7·27272 |  0·47126 |     —     |    —     |
    +--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+
    |Bronze:             |           |          |           |          |
    |  Penny             | 145·83333 |  9·44984 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Halfpenny         |  87·50000 |  5·66990 |     —     |    —     |
    |  Farthing          |  43·75000 |  2·83495 |     —     |    —     |
    +--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+

    +--------------------+----------------+----------------------------+
    |                    |                |    Remedy Allowance.       |
    |  Denomination of   |                +-----------------+----------+
    |       Coin.        |     Standard   |Weight per piece.|Millesimal|
    |                    |     Fineness.  +--------+--------+Fineness. |
    |                    |                |Imperial| Metric |          |
    |                    |                | Grains.|  Grams.|          |
    +--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
    |Gold:               |                |        |        |          |
    |  Five Pound        | Eleven-twelfths| 1·00000| 0·06479|          |
    |  Two Pound         |    fine gold,  | 0·40000| 0·02592|   0·002  |
    |  Sovereign         |   one-twelfth  | 0·20000| 0·01296|          |
    |  Half-Sovereign    |     alloy;     | 0·10000| 0·00648|          |
    |                    | or millesimal  |        |        |          |
    |                    |fineness 916·66.|        |        |          |
    +--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
    |Silver:             |                |        |        |          |
    |  Crown             |                | 1·81818| 0·11781|          |
    |  Half-Crown        |                | 0·90909| 0·05890|          |
    |  Florin            |   Thirty-seven | 0·72727| 0·04712|          |
    |  Shilling          |  fortieths fine| 0·36363| 0·02356|          |
    |  Sixpence          |      silver,   | 0·18181| 0·01178|   0·004  |
    |  Groat or Fourpence| three-fortieths| 0·12121| 0·00785|          |
    |  Threepence        |     alloy; or  | 0·09090| 0·00589|          |
    |  Twopence          |    millesimal  | 0·06060| 0·00392|          |
    |  Penny             |   fineness 925·| 0·03030| 0·00196|          |
    +--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
    |Bronze:             |                |        |        |          |
    |  Penny             |   Mixed metal, | 2·91666| 0·18899|          |
    |  Halfpenny         |   copper, tin, | 1·75000| 0·11339|  None.   |
    |  Farthing          |     and zinc.  | 0·87500| 0·05669|          |
    +--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+

     The weight and fineness of the coins specified in this
     Schedule are according to what is provided by the
     Act fifty-six George III., chapter sixty-eight, that
     the gold coin of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
     and Ireland should hold such weight and fineness as
     were prescribed in the then existing Mint indenture
     (that is to say), that there should be nine hundred
     and thirty-four sovereigns and one ten-shilling piece
     contained in twenty pounds weight troy of standard
     gold, of the fineness at the trial of the same of
     twenty-two carats fine gold and two carats of alloy in
     the pound weight troy; and further, as regards silver
     coin, that there should be sixty-six shillings in
     every pound troy of standard silver of the fineness
     of eleven ounces two pennyweights of fine silver and
     eighteen pennyweights of alloy in every pound weight
     troy.

In annealing the precious metals, it is intended to use large retorts
of Stourbridge clay instead of the naked flame, as is the present
practice. The advantage of using retorts will be the protection
they will afford to the substances to be annealed, and the uniform
temperature at which they may be kept for any required time. So great
are the obstacles to improvement in the British Mint, that, although
this suggestion was made by me, and plans were prepared, in June,
1861, the necessary alterations have not yet been attempted; indeed,
it has been reserved to Mr. P. F. Comber, the intelligent chief coiner
of the New Mint in Melbourne, to adopt this suggestion. The furnace
for his use has been made by Messrs. Deane, of Arthur Street East,
London Bridge, who, from experience, know this kind of furnace to be
successful; indeed, it has been long used to gain higher temperatures
than are required for metals in the annealing of glass, pottery, &c.
I have recently been permitted to make a long series of experiments
at the works of the Patent Fuel Company, on their wharf at Deptford,
and these have convinced me that their mode of converting hydrocarbons
into vapour, and burning that vapour with a proper supply of air under
pressure, could be applied in the Mint with great advantage to the
heating of the annealing furnaces, especially if the authorities of
that department should adopt the retorts proposed.

In my previous editions I have suggested the use of these retorts,
and I am glad to see that the Royal Mint is likely to adopt them, for
Mr. Napier recommends them in his Report, and Mr. Roberts not only
coincides in that recommendation, but specifically says, “It is a
question for consideration whether muffles of clay instead of iron, and
gas as fuel, might not be used with advantage.”

The coinage of bronze is somewhat new; that is to say, it has, after
centuries, been re-introduced; and as little is known respecting it, it
will be well to consider one or two circumstances connected therewith.
The dimensions of the bars are previously given,[45] those measurements
were determined by me after much troublesome experimenting, and
the bars are found to be capable of producing the best blanks, as
regards equality of weight one for another, with the least labour.
In the rolling of bronze there are some singular facts to be noted;
for instance, the finding the same metal at one time ductile, and at
another absolutely brittle; yet if the bronze has been properly melted,
with due precaution to avoid the access of atmospheric oxygen, it is
uniformly malleable and ductile, and may be rolled from such bars as
described without once annealing. It is sometimes preferred not to use
the knowledge gained, and then complications commence. The following
mode of operating will meet all cases:—The bars may be rolled down to
half their thickness, and then will anneal perfectly well in an open
furnace on an iron truck. The heating should be conducted rapidly,
and when the fillets get to a full red heat they should be withdrawn,
thrown out singly on the floor, and allowed to remain till perfectly
cold. Should any bars be annealed in the rough state, they must be kept
away from water. A little water thrown upon the end of a bar when red
hot causes it to become rotten throughout, and on submission to any
pressure it will fall to pieces as would gingerbread; yet if the bars
be partly rolled to a certain proportion of their thickness, they may
be plunged at once into cold water without damaging them for work.
After annealing, the fillets should be blanched in diluted sulphuric
acid, containing one per cent. of the ordinary commercial acid. It is
well to save time by blanching two or three tons at a time; but a few
minutes effect all that is required—that is, the separation of the
film of oxide from the surface. The film is then removed by a mop made
of rag or cotton waste, and with little labour a few boys may clean
many tons in a day. Fillets which have been blanched before being
rolled produce clean and bright blanks. The blanks require somewhat
different treatment. It is better to anneal them in copper tubes. The
bottom of the tube should be covered to about the depth of an inch
with charcoal dust, then the tube filled with blanks, except allowing
for another layer of coarse charcoal dust, and the top put on to the
tube. The annealing should not occupy more than thirty-six minutes;
the highest temperature should be that at which the tube looks a full
reddish white, and this should be gained as rapidly as possible. The
tube, after removal from the furnace, should be allowed to remain at
rest till perfectly cold. The charcoal is intended to combine with the
oxygen, which would otherwise combine with the metals of the bronze
during the heating and the cooling of the blanks in the copper tubes.
Having regard to the production of perfect coins, the blanks should be
cooled in an atmosphere of ordinary coal gas, by which every particle
of oxygen is prevented from access, and a great part of the oxides
already existing in the alloy reduced by the combination of their
oxygen with the hydrogen of the coal gas, thus leaving the blanks
somewhat porous, and comparatively soft, so that, when coined, the
metal wholly fills the work on the dies, and the coin is produced with
a good protecting edge. Bronze as used at the Royal Mint consisting of
95 of copper, 4 tin, and 1 zinc in 100 parts—zinc should be omitted
because it causes useless labour—may be coined to great perfection
if the blanks be cooled in coal gas after annealing: whereas bronze
of a far softer nature cannot be made to fill the work of the dies
satisfactorily by any other method yet known, unless the engraving
on the dies be very shallow. The bronze coins, which have replaced
the old copper money, have what is considered to be an innovation in
the inscription by the repetition of the T in the abbreviation of
Britanniarum, which is simply the classical mode of expressing in an
abbreviated form the number of the possessions which together form
Great Britain; it is equivalent to MS., which is the abbreviation for
manuscript, while MSS. represents the word manuscripts; so BRITT.
represents the cluster of islands or possessions called Great Britain.
The objection to BRITT., on the ground of its being an innovation, is
singular, as this word occurs on the shillings of George III., coined
in 1816. It is also curious that the original dies for the bronze
coinage were made to carry BRIT. only, until a coin found its way
into the hands of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, who at once pointed
out the error, and thus caused the re-introduction of the classical
BRITT. Mr. Gladstone also suggested the issue of octagonal bronze
coins, which undoubtedly would have been a mistake had it been adopted.
Perhaps it may not be uninteresting to record that the pattern penny in
bronze, which was submitted to and approved by her Majesty, was lost
in its passage through the post, for the postman opened the letter and
destroyed both it and the penny in a closet in the Royal Mint. Copper
and bronze money are merely tokens; it is therefore well to reduce such
tokens to as low a weight as is consistent with the rigidity of the
coin.

[Footnote 45: See page 9.]

By Royal Proclamation, dated at Windsor, 13th of May, 1869, the
old copper moneys are declared illegal; or, in the words of the
proclamation, “No copper moneys whatsoever (other than and except
such bronze moneys as are now current by virtue of our proclamation
bearing date the 17th day of December, 1860, or any proclamation dated
subsequently to the said 17th day of December, 1860) shall be allowed
to pass or be current in any payment whatsoever within the kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland after the 31st of December, 1869.” So that
since that date no copper moneys have been legally paid away. This,
however, will not affect those who wish to preserve copper coins of
this or former reigns as specimens.

As dies are the means by which metal becomes COIN, it will be material
to add the processes of their manufacture. Experience alone can
indicate the proper steel to be used, so that it is useless to attempt
a description. But the form of the steel is a matter upon which
die-makers differ. Some use square bars of that metal, and cut off
pieces, which are forged into the proper form for dies; however, the
more experienced die-makers use round bars of steel, which are cut by a
tool somewhat of the shape of the bar, so that when the tool is struck
every part of its edge begins to cut. The tool is so shaped as to leave
the end of the bar from which the piece has been cut quite square, so
that it may form the bottom for the next piece cut off. The piece of
steel thus cut off is taken to a lathe, where its upper end is turned
somewhat into the form of the top of a sugar-loaf; the depth of this
form being determined by the style of work to be impressed upon the
steel when it is to be formed into a die. For the original matrix the
piece of steel is turned to a flat end, and is usually strengthened by
driving a carefully-welded ring of hot iron on to it: although some
prefer thus to simply shrink on a ring of iron, the more experienced
choose welding, because that which is shrunk on is never so solid,
and is apt to enclose air bubbles, which prevent the mass becoming
one, thus permitting an undue yield in a faulty spot when pressure is
applied. In the making of a matrix, the steel is softened to different
extents by different engravers, but all soften more or less. The steel
having been softened, the engraver cuts with a kind of hand chisel,
by a motion of the wrist, such design as may be required, and after
many months of work produces a finished matrix, from which he requires
to produce many copies, because this one matrix would itself soon
wear out, and by frequent use would be more exposed to risk. It is,
therefore, hardened to admit of its being submitted to such pressure
from another piece of steel as to impart its design to that steel
without itself being distorted by the pressure. For this purpose the
matrix is fitted with a ring of iron round its upper part, which, when
fitted on, gives the engraved part the appearance of being the bottom
of a cup; this cup is filled with a paste made of beer grounds and
fine charcoal dust, or, better still, with that small charcoal which
is found behind the flue of the forge—a kind of soot produced by the
spent sparks which fly upwards, and which is so much in request by the
file-makers. Thus protected, the matrix should be placed in the naked
fire wholly enclosed with fuel, and heated as rapidly as possible,
keeping it constantly turned round and round, so as to insure each
particle of its mass being equally heated; a quarter of an hour should
be long enough to produce the necessary temperature. It must be borne
in mind that the great principle is to avoid the decarbonisation of
the steel, therefore the less time that is occupied the better. The
temperature of the matrix should be that rich and peculiar full red
which for a few seconds is visible before white heat supervenes, for
a white heat once gained causes the steel to scale off, and renders
the matrix partially worthless. This peculiar temperature once gained,
the matrix must be permitted to remain for three minutes in the fire
without any blast. If it should get too hot it must be cooled by adding
exhausted fuel from the hearth. At the end of three minutes’ quiescent
heating it may be assumed that the centre of the matrix has become of
the same temperature as its outer particles; it is then taken quickly
from the furnace and placed in a kind of colander, so that water may
wholly envelope it, and yet flow freely past it while its under surface
is wholly exposed. The matrix C is placed in the colander D, Fig.
22, bottom upwards, and is then brought immediately under the pipe
dependent from a kind of funnel A, which should hold at least a hundred
gallons of cold water; the bottom of the pipe must be secured by a plug
of wood B, capable of being knocked out instantaneously. This is the
most important process in the hardening of the matrix, and requires
considerable steadiness with great rapidity of motion. The matrix
being held in the colander about half an inch above a large surface
of water E, and immediately under the centre of the plugged pipe from
the funnel, the plug B is knocked out from the pipe, and the water
falls in a continuous stream wholly unbroken until striking the very
centre of the base of the matrix, thus securing the commencement of the
process of hardening FROM THE CENTRE. So soon as this first shock of
the flowing water has been effected, the matrix must be sunk into the
vessel of water below, until it is uniformly covered to the depth of
half an inch, and must be held there until the whole of the water from
the funnel has run out; then the matrix must be sunk to the bottom of
the vessel of water, and allowed to remain till absolutely cold. If it
be removed before it be cooled throughout, there is great danger of a
crack on its surface being produced by the expansion from within. The
plug is preferred to a tap in the pipe from which the water is to flow,
because the turning of a tap gives a motion to the water, which causes
it to fall in a hollow stream, and thus obviates the very effect which
it is desired to produce. This process has been followed for more than
thirty years, and during that time the manufacturer who uses it—one of
the most eminent engravers and die-makers in Europe—has never met with
any accident, nor has he found any failure. I have recently visited a
manufactory in South Yorkshire in which many thousands of dies are made
annually on this system, without an instance of failure. Die-makers,
after the hardening, proceed as follows:—Remove the paste of charcoal
from the face of the matrix, and then clean the face of the die with
hydrochloric acid. After this it is tempered—that is to say, it is
raised to a temperature which somewhat relaxes the rigidity of its
particles; this is commonly judged of by the COLOUR which the face of
the matrix assumes; but since no two men are likely to distinguish the
same tint, nor can any one actually judge of colour unerringly, it is
wise to adopt another standard, the one most preferred being to temper
the matrix until the engraver can make a good graver _bite_ while the
die is hot. The tempered die may be cooled by plunging it either into
oil or into water as soon as the tempering has reached the desired
point. If at this instant the tempering cease, when the die is dead
cold the graver will no longer touch the steel, which is now just so
hard as to resist a blow without fracture. It is next polished, and is
then fit for use; that is to say, is fit for the multiplication of dies
from itself.

[Illustration: Fig. 22.—Die Hardening.]

The multiplication consists in the taking a set of punches, each
being an exact copy of the matrix. The steel, having been formed
into masses with sugar-loaf tops in accordance with the depth of the
engraving, is ready to receive the impression from the matrix, just
as hot sealing-wax is ready to receive the impression from a signet.
The matrix is placed beneath a press, and on its face is placed the
sugar-loaf end of the annealed mass of steel; a very light blow is
given by the press, so as to obtain simply the sinking of the first
portion of the cone, for if a violent blow be given at this stage it is
manifest that a large mass of steel is forced into a smaller space; in
other words, the particles of steel which formed the cone are pressed
into a dense mass on the surface of the intended punch, and prepare a
crack, which by-and-by developes itself. After this light blow, the
partly-formed punch is placed in a covered pot filled with charcoal,
and heated in a furnace just as was described for the hardening of
the matrix, bearing in mind that it is the cooling, not the heating,
which softens the steel. So soon as the heating has been raised to the
point before indicated, the pot containing the punch is removed, and
bedded in hot ashes, and there left to cool as slowly as possible; it
should be forty hours before it becomes cold. When cold it is cleaned,
receives a second very light blow under the press, examined, afterwards
receiving a third very light blow, and is then a second time annealed,
&c. The number of blows required to bring out to perfection on the
punch the work on the matrix, depends entirely upon the size of the
matrix and the depth of the work engraved upon it. For these reasons,
no accurate instructions can be given; but for all cases light blows
should be made, because all metals mould more readily under gentle
treatment.

From the punch is obtained, by processes which should be in every way
similar, a series of dies for the use of the coining press. Each die
from the punch is examined, and has the figures for the date impressed
upon it before it is hardened. The dies are of two kinds: one, C, the
obverse, with a long neck, upon which the collar B fits freely, and a
second, the reverse, with a short neck, so that the face of the die
just enters the collar sufficiently to meet and compress the blank.
Fig. 23 demonstrates these two dies, and exhibits the collar, showing
at B the milled interior circle, which gives the crenated edge to the
finished coin at its formation. For the past few years the reverse die
has been made to carry, in addition to its recognised device, a small
number, with a view to determine at which coining press, and on what
particular day, that die was used, that bad work might be traced to an
individual. It need hardly be said that the accidents encountered in
daily work overcome the object thus sought, for a die may last either
minutes or days in wear owing to the irregularities of the steel from
which it is made, and besides, the boys who work the presses are of
necessity changed at irregular intervals.

[Illustration: Fig. 23.—Coining Dies and Collar.]

The long-necked die is fitted into a bolster D, as shown in Fig. 23,
and is prevented from shifting its position in that bolster by a plug
of iron indicated at E. The bolster, with its die, is secured in a kind
of dish beneath the screw of the press by a series of screws, which
admit of adjusting the bolster so that the die it carries shall be
placed immediately beneath the upper die, which is carried on the main
screw G of the press, as may be seen at page 60.

There is little doubt but that certain stages of die manufacture
would be rendered more effective if more reasonable treatment were
employed. It has yet to be demonstrated that carbon steel is the best
metal that can be employed, for it seems more than probable that some
alloys would render a metal which would possess within itself more of
the properties which are necessary for the perfecting a die, and for
its duration when in use. For the elimination of such an alloy we must
await the time when the non-resident assayers are replaced by resident
chemists who, during the leisure times in the Mint, will be willing
and glad to experiment on some of the compounds of iron with the rarer
metals, for in that field will surely be found a combination which
will be definite, and therefore homogeneous and unvarying. There can
be no doubt that the cause of the uncertainty which prevails as to the
endurance of steel for dies arises from its unequal composition.

Gold possesses as many colours, and exists in as many conditions,
as any substance ordinarily met with. Those various changes are due
to the existence of impurities in the metal, which are neglected in
assaying, because the only business of the assayer is to determine
that the sovereign actually contains the lawful weight of pure gold,
and also so much alloy as is specified: what this alloy shall be is,
in the abstract, a small matter so that it is not silver, because
if it be silver it is worth the expense to separate it, and thereby
destroy the coinage. Yet, although the existence of such metals as
lead, bismuth, tin, antimony, and arsenic, as well as palladium and
osmium-iridium is not illegal, it becomes necessary to separate them,
because these metals affect the coin in various ways. Palladium and
platinum alloy with the gold only after considerable time, therefore
these metals may generally be seen in the finished coin, frequently as
a slight bar across its surface, sometimes as spots on its crenated
edge. Osmium-iridium causes trouble, inasmuch as it is so infusible,
that it simply floats about in the melted gold, and several crystals
agglomerate; where this takes place, the difficulty of manufacture is
so great, that it is impossible to produce the desired amount of coin
within the limits of remedy as to weight. The simplest means for the
removal of these substances is to allow the fused metal to remain for a
considerable time, when they settle to the bottom, and the clear metal
can be poured off; the dregs, if so they may be called, are then sent
to the refiner, but the process of separation is too long, and hardly
adapted for a description in this place.

As a practical matter, the other, or volatile metals, and lead, may be,
and generally are, removed by means of corrosive sublimate. This is an
expensive measure, and does not answer its intention, for some of the
mercury combines with the gold and renders it brittle. In practice, the
best process is that recommended by Mr. Warington, who proposed to add
to gold found to contain tin, antimony, or arsenic, 10 per cent. of
oxide of copper. The gold is fused in a Payen crucible, and the oxide
of copper is then added and stirred into the gold by a rod made of the
same substance as the crucible. This operation is easy of performance,
because the infusible oxide of copper stirs up with the gold readily,
and each particle of antimony, arsenic, or tin, as it comes into
contact with the oxide of copper, reduces it to the metallic state,
the volatile metals combining with the oxygen, while an equivalent of
copper alloys itself with the gold. The impurities, as they oxidise,
mix or combine with the oxide of copper. One or two experiments tell
how much copper is thus added to the gold; consequently, how much fine
gold is to be added to keep the alloy standard—and subsequent treatment
by the oxide of copper simply removes the volatile metals. Gold treated
by this process is perfectly workable on a large scale, and there is
no trouble. A condition of success is, that no reducing agent, such
as carbon, be present, and therefore plumbago pots cannot be used. In
practice, half an hour is the best time to keep the metal in contact
with the oxide of copper. The objection is frequently expressed, that
to refine gold is not the business of the coiners. This opinion,
however, will bear modification, for the expense of the oxide of copper
is trifling as compared with the cost of labour in treating brittle
gold.

I now advert to a most important matter in relation to coining, viz.,
that of the loss sustained, its cause, and prevention.

It appears that the Royal Mint should sustain less loss than any other
mint by the coining of gold and silver. If allowance be made for the
sale of the sweep or dust[46] which results from a coinage, the total
loss, inclusive of every operation in coining, should be so small that
it might be passed without notice; in fact, there ought to be a minute
increase of weight from traces of oil which are left on the fillets to
enable them to pass through the cylinders of the draw-bench;[47] by
melting[48] there seems to be too great a loss of metal: this should
reach about £100 per million coined, and such loss would be wholly
explained by the refining, which takes place through the removal of
copper by oxidation; although this is minute, still it is enough to
explain the loss which I indicate. If the assays be closely watched
there can be no loss, for the trial of the pyx invariably shows the
gold coin to err on the side of purity, so that if the Master of the
Mint should determine to issue gold of exact standard, and refuse to
avail himself of the latitude allowed, he may fairly cover every source
of loss, and coin money WITHOUT WASTE OF METAL. Each grain that is
found in excess of the standard upon the pound weight of gold causes
a loss of about £180 upon each million coined. The moneyers asserted
that they sustained a loss of £700 for each million coined, such loss
being exclusive of melting. This has never been believed to have been
a truthful statement, nor has the loss by coining alone often reached
so high an amount, although so large a sum as £373 per million would
seem to have been determined, by some careful experimenters, as the
necessary loss. Where the gold went to was not stated; but supposing
such a loss to accrue, it is manifest that either the gold volatilised
or the floors must be paved to many inches in thickness with gold,
but it is an established fact that matter once existent cannot be
annihilated; yet it has required many arguments to convince those most
interested in coining that the mere cutting up of bullion into small
pieces does not alter its actual weight: the present Mint Authorities
entertain the fallacious notion that large loss of gold is, for
metallurgical reasons, NECESSARY. Notwithstanding Mr. Graham’s opinion
that a loss of £206 on a million _was too high_,[49] they in their
“Reports on European Mints” have arrived at the conclusion “that the
‘waste’ shown to have existed of late years in the English Mint _has
not been excessive_.”

[Footnote 46: See pages 86-88, 140.]

[Footnote 47: See pages 29, 32-33.]

[Footnote 48: See pages 98-99.]

[Footnote 49: See page 178.]

To leave, then, the realms of speculation, and for a short time to
examine figures, a matter which is little understood will be reduced
to one of easy comprehension. Mr. W. T. Brande, in connection with
others, carried on a series of experiments between 1851 and 1856, the
results of which he gave me in writing, and which induced him to arrive
at the conclusion that by coining alone there was a loss varying from
1·20 grains on the pound, to 3·10 grains on the pound troy, or a mean
of 2·15 grains on each pound troy coined. This loss was thought to be
a necessary consequence of coining, and by a simple rule-of-three it
tells as follows:—

    A loss of 1·20 grains on the lb. = £208·33 on each £1,000,000.
        ”     3·10   ”        ”      = £538·18      ”  £1,000,000.
    Mean loss 2·15   ”        ”      = £373·26      ”  £1,000,000.

Mr. Brande and his colleagues, by his own admission, did not know the
value of the sweep recovered, therefore this loss was believed to be
absolute. We will next examine the accounts and see the fruit of that
belief, and then determine the effect of a contrary faith. And in the
following statements, given in a tabular form, I would observe that
the facts recorded were compiled by the Mint officials for the Master
at my suggestion, and that copies were given to me by the late Master,
who indeed invariably, when such statements were prepared, handed them
to me to copy and examine for my own information, and to see that they
were accurate.

It is a fact that the Mint books do not record the loss upon the gold
coined in November and December, 1851; or, if they do, these accounts
have been only quite recently balanced. In the following statement I
omit the coin of those two quarters, because the late Deputy Master
assured me that the accounts were not made up. This, I am aware, lays
me open to a correction; I therefore state that the coined money of
these two months is not included in my calculations.

STATEMENT SHOWING THE RATE OF COIN OBTAINED AND THE LOSS OF METAL
INCURRED IN EACH QUARTER FROM MARCH, 1852, TO DECEMBER, 1857.

     (A) = Proportional Loss of Metal on each Million Ounces Coined.
    +------------------+---------------+-----------------+---------+
    |                  |Total Amount of| Rate per Centum |         |
    |Quarter ending:—  | Gold Coined   | of Coin obtained|   (A)   |
    |                  | per Quarter.  | from Rough Bars.|         |
    +------------------+---------------+-----------------+---------+
    |                  |   Ounces.     |     Ounces.     | Ounces. |
    |March 31st, 1852  |   300260·201  |                 |  446·94 |
    |June 30th,   ”    |   501032·558  |                 |  399·17 |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |   615753·337  |                 |  500·50 |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |   828159·837  |       50·51     |  639·37 |
    |March 31st, 1853  |  1113414·454  |       47·28     |  691·60 |
    |June 30th,   ”    |  1223454·550  |       49·40     |  472·34 |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |   248434·554  |       39·34     | 1130·64 |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |   484331·447  |       42·81     |  784·42 |
    |March 31st, 1854  |   769791·029  |       54·21     |  730·61 |
    |June 30th,   ”    |   101611·604  |       49·65     |  787·21 |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |   194968·684  |       47·76     |  583·07 |
    |March 31st, 1855  |   515639·229  |       47·42     |  447·05 |
    |June 30th,   ”    |   501708·378  |       47·01     |  456·20 |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |   283944·316  |       43·53     |  420·18 |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |  1012329·518  |       44·57     |  509·08 |
    |March 31st, 1856  |   360409·244  |       38·39     |  489·05 |
    |June 30th,   ”    |   818465·116  |       40·36     |  509·57 |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |   362599·792  |       41·74     |  406·28 |
    |March 31st, 1857  |    73638·878  |       39·64     |  233·84 |
    |June 30th,   ”    |    19872·998  |       40·52     |   57·86 |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |  1154606·290  |       54·69     |   18·45 |
    +------------------+---------------+-----------------+---------+

There will be occasion to refer to the next table for further
information; but as the facts in this table are not strictly comparable
with any others that will be given, it is better to explain this as
it stands. Of the rate per centum of coin obtained from the bars
there will be occasion to speak at a later period. These figures are
placed here with a view to save repetition, which would be necessary
when that subject is discussed.[50] Although the figures in the first
column represent ounces, each item can at pleasure be converted into
pounds sterling by multiplying it by £3·89375, which is the decimal
expression for £3 17_s._ 10½_d._, the price per ounce of standard gold.
In such case it will only be necessary to multiply the weight of the
coinage by that value, and then to consider the loss of metal as pounds
sterling—thus, 300,260·201 ozs. + £3·89375 = £1,171,318 5_s._ 3¼_d._,
which sum lost weight by coining at the rate of £446 18_s._ 9½_d._
per million coined. If calculation be made by addition and division
of the figures in the third column, it will be observed that the
average loss per million between March, 1852, and December, 1856, is
£577·96,[51] and this was believed to be absolutely wasted in coining;
but this amount may be fairly reduced by the deduction of £72 10_s._,
the average value of sweep recovered, when it will remain £505·85. It
will also be seen that the rate per million missing—for that is the
fact—varied a good deal according to circumstances.

[Footnote 50: See pages 107, 117.]

[Footnote 51: See page 89.]

It has been asserted that these losses were mere matters of account,
and resulted from the removal of “fat or oil” in the various
operations. These explanations shall be admitted to their fullest
extent, but that they do not contain the cause for all the losses is
to be gathered from the fact that gold has been returned to the Mint
by the brickmaker, who found it in the ashes which he had bought. That
there were cases of actual theft I am myself aware; for I, by the
Master’s sanction, dismissed two men who were detected. Eleven others
shared the same fate, but no prosecution was attempted or permitted,
although strongly urged. As bearing on this point the following, in
relation to “peculation,” is told and believed in the Mint:—In 1856,
when the men had formed a strong opinion as to the honesty of one
particular person, they took their own means to watch him, and to see
how and when he abstracted the metal. A clear-headed man made it his
business to do this duty. The suspected man was assisting the officer
at the scales in the drag room, when the watcher saw him, after the
bullion was weighed, take a piece stealthily and secrete it in the
palm of his hand. The watcher, thinking to secure detection, requested
the officer at the scales to re-weigh that draft; but this gentleman
refused to comply. The watcher then told the officer what he had seen,
and that if he would open the man’s hand the piece of gold was still in
it, when the officer, addressing the suspected person, said, “Is it all
right, John?” John replied “Yes,” and no more passed. On his road home
“John” stumbled, and a piece of uncoined gold fell on the pavement.

That metal was actually removed from the premises is beyond doubt, for
a late officer picked up a piece of gold in the courtyard wrapped in
brown paper, and the police brought to the Master a “flat end”[52] of
gold, which had been offered for sale. The police inspected all the
men in the Mint employ; but the person who abstracted the gold did not
personally offer it for sale, and thereby escaped detection.

On the 2nd of December, 1853, the cutting room book records a loss of
87·26 ounces of gold, for which no satisfactory explanation is given.
This book also contains some significant remarks by the officer who had
charge of that department.

The Mint books adopt the word “Wasteage” as explanatory of these
losses, which were believed to be a necessary result of coining; so
generally, indeed, was this firmly-implanted belief entertained, that
at the bottom of each day’s account the word loss was printed, so that
the officer had only to write the amount which was missing.

If indeed proof that unnecessary wasteage[53] took place be required,
it will be but necessary to quote from the letter of the Master of the
Mint to the Treasury, dated 7th June, 1860. This letter was placed in
my hands on the 1st June, 1860, by the Master, who desired me to copy
such parts as related to loss and were of service to me, and that I
might confirm the accuracy of his figures. He said, “It appears by the
table that the average loss on the gold coinage of the first six years
is £784 0_s._ 0¾_d._, and on the gold of the last three years £172
8_s._ 11½_d._ per million coined, showing an improvement of £611 11_s._
1¼_d._ per million coined. On the twelve millions of gold coined during
the last three years the saving exceeds twelve thousand pounds.” The
three years here referred to were contained in the period during which
Mr. Graham entrusted me with the management of the coining department.

[Footnote 52: See page 27.]

[Footnote 53: See pages 99-106.]

That the actual amount of loss by coining may be got at, it will be
necessary to view the matter in a different form, and in that way to
show the amount of money recovered by the sale of sweep; that is, by
the sale of the ignited rubbish accumulated during a coinage, and
in the statement given on page 90 the money value of each item is
specifically represented. It need not be insisted that the utmost care
should be exercised in preserving the sweep, when it is stated that
this yields, at the end of a coinage, from 15 to 20 ounces of material
bullion called _scrap or supply_, when picked over before sale, for
only such as will pass through a fine sieve is sold; yet this sweep
used to stand about in open, unlocked boxes from month’s end to month’s
end.

It would be wrong to state that there is no _apparent_ loss by coining
gold. If, however, the whole circumstances be examined, it will be
found that, after deducting every legitimate waste, an appreciable gain
should be exhibited. In annealing sovereign blanks the loss is 54·12
ounces on each million. This then would appear to be an absolute waste;
but starting on the undisputed fact that “_matter cannot be lost_,” let
us see what becomes of these 54·12 ounces apparently lost. 54·12 ounces
contain 25,977·60 grains troy. Now, since careful analysis extending
over more than thirty millions of gold annealed has determined that
each million lost 5,708 grains of copper, and this copper is washed
away as sulphate of copper, it may be admitted that so much is lost,
thus leaving 20,169·60 grains unaccounted for. These 20,169·60 grains
are just 42·02 ounces, and if proper care were bestowed I could show
how every particle should be recovered at the end of the coinage.

That there should be a gain is demonstrable from the fact that the gold
as received into the coining department is quite clean; when wrought it
becomes coated with oil, and this being returned on the scissel[54] to
the melting-house is really charged as gold. In 1858 Mr. W. H. Barton,
experimenting independently, arrived at the conclusion that there were
200 ounces of oil on 765,370 ounces of gold scissel, while on the same
scissel I, by careful experiments, determined that there were 118·39
ounces of oil, the remainder being dust and other foreign matter.
Further experiments, conducted by Mr. Barton for his own satisfaction,
brought him to adopt my figures as accurate. This proportion would give
154·55 ounces to each million ounces of scissel; but since good work
returns only 35·80 per cent. of scissel on the rough bars, it becomes
manifest that this same proportion is but 101·22 ounces in each million
coined.

[Footnote 54: See pages 35, 87.]

Now the MONEYERS[55] used to make an allowance of 347 ounces to each
million ounces of scissel, and with such sharp business-like people
it is barely possible that they allowed too much. We may therefore
assume that the scissel of the present day is much less covered with
oil than it used to be; and this is indeed the truth, for whereas the
trucks were wont to be actually spotted with oil which dropped from
gold scissel, they are now unstained; and it may be mentioned that, to
test the minute amount on the scissel, the Master has upon occasions
wiped it with a white cambric handkerchief, by way of settling a
disputed point, without perceptibly soiling the handkerchief. Admitting
then a loss of 42·02 by annealing and blanching, we get, by deducting
this from the gain by oil, an absolute gain of 59·20 ounces on each
million ounces coined. In a little while, when examining the table, we
shall see how this theory worked out in practice; for, to be perfect,
it should be capable of demonstration. The question will naturally
arise, If the oil be now so small in proportion, why should there not
be an increased loss by melting? And here indeed arises a very nice
point, but one which is proved to demonstration—that whereas large
amounts of oil _cause_ loss, small quantities of oil PREVENT loss by
melting, and for the following reason. Standard gold consists of copper
2 parts, gold 22 parts. So soon as this gold approaches red heat it
changes to a purple colour on its surface, owing to the oxidation of
the copper. If, however, a trace of oil be present, the heat, while it
warms the gold, volatilises the oil, and thus places the gold in an
atmosphere free from oxygen, so that the standard gold remains metallic
until it liquefies; hence the saving of loss, for any oxide of copper
would be lost in the pot. This matter of the oil has been dwelt upon
because it is a vexed question, and when the melter, by want of care,
makes a large loss, he invariably, by a human weakness, attributes
the loss to the oil on the scissel. It was on such an occasion that
the assistant-melter produced the following amusing parody on the
three witches of Shakespeare. The illustrative picture is clever, but
unfitted for these pages.

[Footnote 55: The moneyers were those contractors who conducted the
coinages previously to the Mint being formed into a governmental
department in 1851.—_Vide_ Parliamentary Reports, 1837, 1849, 1852.]

    _First Witch_. Round about the journeys go,
          In the dirt and rubbish throw;
          Extraneous matters, small and great,
          Everything to make the weight.

    _Second Witch_. Stone swept up and pounded small,
          Pieces of the stuccoed wall,
          A bit of saffron-coloured brick,
          Odds and ends of broken stick;
          Here’s the sweeping of the floor,
          Weighing full an ounce or more.

    _All_. Hubble bubble, toil and bubble,
          Give the melter every trouble.

    _Third Witch_. Copper by annealing got,
          Send largely to the melting-pot;
          A pennyweight of leather strap,
          A piece of old brown paper cap,
          Some cotton fluff, ten grains of coal,
          Then OIL to saturate the whole.

    _All_. Hubble bubble, toil and bubble,
          Give the melter every trouble.

    MACBETH (_as Justice_). How now, ye secret, black,
                                          and cunning rollers!
          What is’t ye do?

    _All_.         A deed without a name.

    _24th November, 1862._                           J. G.

Upon consulting the table—see p. 90—it will be found that, by deducting
the value of the sweep recovered, from the value of the metal lost,
between the periods November, 1851, and March, 1857, the actual loss
was £19,930 18_s._ 0_d_., which sum, divided by the amount of gold
coined in that period—viz., £40345185·450, gives £494 as a _bona fide_
loss on each million pounds coined, when the belief was to the effect
that there must be a loss. The great fact, _that matter once existent
cannot be lost_, was never applied to the operations of minting until,
in 1856, I demonstrated to the Master that the floors not being paved
to many inches thick with gold, the bullion which was stated to be
“wasted” in coining must have been _absolutely volatilised_, the
proposition exposing me to more than ridicule at the time, and to
positive hatred and misrepresentation thereafter; but when once the
determination was formed to arrest what I saw clearly was unnecessary
loss, it was carried out firmly, and in November, 1856, I commenced my
determinations of the _necessary_ amount of loss in each operation, as
well as a series of experiments to elucidate other points requiring
reform and explanation.

In furtherance of this firm resolve I assembled the men together, and
informed them that I had now taken charge of the departments over which
I had been placed, and that I should not permit any man to leave the
Mint until the account was satisfied, and I had received from them the
bullion to its uttermost part which I proposed to entrust to them.
That I might effect this determination I weighed out to them, in their
presence, a limited weight of gold, and then directed their foreman,
on their behalf, to satisfy himself that the weight I charged was fair
and honest; and then, with a firmness which surprised them, I followed
this gold step by step, never for an instant permitting it to leave
my sight, and at _each step in its passage from bullion to coined
money_ I carefully weighed it, and made the foreman again check me,
all the men being witnesses. At the end of the operations a FIXED GAIN
exhibited itself. I was called upon for an explanation, which I gave,
and each man was thus convinced that it was no use to attempt to cheat
me, and was compelled to acknowledge that unless by abstraction there
could be no loss. Many arguments followed for months, but LOSS became a
matter of history so long as I was present,—not so in my absence, even
at that time, as the books will show.

Great firmness was required, but I persevered, and received not only
thanks, but very valuable assistance from many of the men. With a
view to keep the Master supplied with information as I gained it, I
adopted a plan of reporting to him daily in writing the various changes
which took place in the bullion under my care as regards differences
of weighing, loss or gain, the amount per cent. of coin obtained, and
other such details, and at the end of each coinage I summarised the
whole of such facts into a tabular form, and thus rendered to him a
complete history of the operations conducted. This proved of immense
service, for upon the occurrence of an unusual event, attention was
at once drawn to it, and means adopted to discover the cause, while
at the same time a constant study of these reports could not fail to
induce for myself a more minute inquiry into the various branches of
my subject. I feel it cannot be unfitting to give, before proceeding
further, one of these statements or reports relating to gold, and when
I come to the discussion of silver I will, in its proper position,
place such another table, because these seem to convey much practical
information which will be useful to those engaged in coining.

The report placed on page 92 is a copy of one I made to the Master, so
I give it _in extenso_, and it will be found that by it bullion may be
traced from its first admission to the coining department to its final
issue as coined money, while each item of its history finds a place in
the immediate department in which the bullion may be under operation.

STATEMENT OF LOSSES INCURRED AND OF SWEEP RECOVERED. THIS REFERS WHOLLY
TO GOLD IN THE COINING DEPARTMENT.

    +--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+--------
    |                          | Weight of |                   | Weight
    |   Date—Financial Year.   |  Coinage. | Value of Coinage. |   of
    |                          |           |                   |  Lost
    |                          |           |                   | Metal.
    +--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+--------
    |                          | Ounces.   |       £  _s._ _d._| Ounces.
    | Nov. 1851 to March 1852  | 351837·830| 1,369,968 11   0  | 134·206
    |April 1852 to March 1853  |3058360·186|11,908,489 19   5½ |1851·888
    |  ”   1853      ”   1854  |2726011·580|10,614,408 11   9¾ |1804·559
    |  ”   1854      ”   1855  | 812219·517| 3,162,579 14  10½ | 424·092
    |  ”   1855      ”   1856  |2158391·456| 8,404,236 14   7½ |1039·798
    |  ”   1856      ”   1857  |1254703·786| 4,885,502 17   2  | 581·615
    |  ”   1857      ”   1858  |1256586·572| 4,892,833 19   4  |  17·784
    |  ”   1858      ”   1859  | 736150·582| 2,866,386  6   6¾ |  16·603
    |  ”   1859      ”   1860  | 980070·679| 3,816,150  4   2  |  74·857
    |  ”   1860      ”   1861  | 861205·000| 3,353,316 19   5  |
    |  ”   1861      ”   1862  |1872214·638| 7,289,935 14  11  | 263·568
    |  ”   1862      ”   1863  |2351444·336| 9,155,936  7   8  |  27·480
    |  ”   1863      ”   1864  |1807332·130| 7,037,299  9   8  |  47·054
    |  ”   1864      ”   1865  |1949438·200| 7,590,624 19  10  |  43·491
    |  ”   1865      ”   1866  |1256347·104| 4,891,901 10   9  |  57·612
    |  ”   1866      ”   1867  | 175838·208|   684,670  0   5  |   5·037
    |  ”   1867      ”   1868  | 109580·129|   426,677 12   1¾ |   3·357
    |June 1868 to Sept.  1868  | 280993·740| 1,094,119  7   6  | ⁂19·87|
    +--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+--------
    +--------------------------+-----------------+--------------
    |                          |    Value of     |   Value of
    |   Date--Financial Year.  |   Lost Metal.   |    Sweep.
    |                          |                 |
    |                          |                 |
    +--------------------------+-----------------+--------------
    |                          |    £  _s._ _d._ |  £   _s._ _d._
    | Nov. 1851 to March 1852  |   522  11   3   |  89   1    3
    |April 1852 to March 1853  | 7,210  15   9¼  | 716  11   11½
    |  ”   1853      ”   1854  | 7,026  10   0¼  | 707   7    3½
    |  ”   1854      ”   1855  | 1,651   6   1¾  | 222  14    3
    |  ”   1855      ”   1856  | 4,148  14   3   | 635  4     1½
    |  ”   1856      ”   1857  | 2,264  13   3   | 422  13   10
    |  ”   1857      ”   1858  |    69   4  11   | 192  14   10
    |  ”   1858      ”   1859  |    64  12  11½  | 209  16    7
    |  ”   1859      ”   1860  |   291   9   6   | 254   4    9
    |  ”   1860      ”   1861  |                 |
    |  ”   1861      ”   1862  | 1,026   5   4   | 545  10    5½
    |  ”   1862      ”   1863  |+  107   0   1   | 360   1   11
    |  ”   1863      ”   1864  |+  183   4   4   | 459   0    1
    |  ”   1864      ”   1865  |   169   6  10   | 295   9    3½
    |  ”   1865      ”   1866  |   224   6   6   | 350   3    9
    |  ”   1866      ”   1867  |    19  12   3   |      Nil.
    |  ”   1867      ”   1868  |    13   1   5   |      Nil.
    |June 1868 to Sept.  1868  |    77   7   7   |      Nil.
    +--------------------------+-----------------+--------------
    +--------------------------+---------------+--------------
    |                          | Value of Lost |Value of Sweep
    |   Date--Financial Year.  |   Metal per   | per Million
    |                          |Million Coined.|   Coined.
    |                          |               |
    +--------------------------+---------------+--------------+
    |                          |  £  _s._ _d._ | £  _s._ _d._
    | Nov. 1851 to March 1852  |  381  8 10¼   |  65  0  2½
    |April 1852 to March 1853  |  605 10  3¾   |  60  3  5¾
    |  ”   1853      ”   1854  |  661 19  6½   |  66 12 10
    |  ”   1854      ”   1855  |  522  2  1¾   |  70  8  5
    |  ”   1855      ”   1856  |  481 14 10¾   |  75 11  7½
    |  ”   1856      ”   1857  |  463 10 11¼   |  86 10  4¼
    |  ”   1857      ”   1858  |⁂  14  3  0    |  39  7 10½
    |  ”   1858      ”   1859  |⁂  22 11  0½   |  73  4  0½
    |  ”   1859      ”   1860  |   76  7  7    |  66 12  5
    |  ”   1860      ”   1861  |               |
    |  ”   1861      ”   1862  |   96  8  6    |  51  5  1
    |  ”   1862      ”   1863  |+  11  3  8    |  39  6  7
    |  ”   1863      ”   1864  |+  26  0  8    |  65  4  5
    |  ”   1864      ”   1865  |⁂  22  6  2    |  38 18  6
    |  ”   1865      ”   1866  |⁂  45 17  1    |  71 11  8
    |  ”   1866      ”   1867  |   28 12 10    |     Nil.
    |  ”   1867      ”   1868  |   30 12  8¼   |     Nil.
    |June 1868 to Sept.  1868  |   70 14  5¾   |     Nil.
    +--------------------------+---------------+--------------+

NOTES.—The sign + indicates that on those special coinages there was an
actual gain by weight to the extent specified, which will be explained
on page 98.

The ⁂ is intended to draw the attention of the reader to these figures
when a little later they are explained at pages 89, 93, 94, 95, 98.

To obtain the true amount of loss, deduct the value of the sweep from
the value of the gold lost.

RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 1870. THE
LORD ROSSIE. No. 1.

FROM THE COINING DEPARTMENT OF THE ROYAL MINT.

A STATEMENT of the Weight and Value of the Gold Moneys coined in each
Financial Year from 1851 to 1869 inclusive, exhibiting the Weight and
Value of the Loss or Waste sustained in each Year, as well as the Value
of Sweep recovered, and the average Proportion of such Loss or Waste
and Sweep recovered to each Million Pounds Sterling coined.

    +----------------------------+-----------+----------------------+
    |           Date.            | Weight of |   Value of Coinage.  |
    |                            |  Coinage. |                      |
    +----------------------------+-----------+----------------------+
    |                            | Ounces.   |       £   _s._ _d._  |
    |Nov.  1851 to March 1852.   | 351837·830| 1,369,968  11   0    |
    |April 1852 to March 1853    |3058360·186|11,908,489  19   5    |
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854    |2726011·580|10,614,407  11  10    |
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855    | 812219·517| 3,162,579  14  10    |
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856    |2158391·456| 8,404,236  14   7    |
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857    |1254703·786| 4,885,502  17   4    |
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858    |1256586·572| 4,892,833  19   4    |
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859    | 736150·582| 2,866,386   6   7    |
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860    | 980070·679| 3,816,150   4   2    |
    |  ”   1860     ”    1861    | 861205·000| 3,353,316  19   5 }  |
    |  ”   1861     ”    1862    |1872214·638| 7,289,935  14  11 }  |
    |  ”   1862     ”    1863    |2351444·336| 9,155,936   7   8    |
    |  ”   1863     ”    1864    |1807332·130| 7,037,299   9   8    |
    |  ”   1864     ”    1865    |1949438·200| 7,590,624  19  10    |
    |  ”   1865     ”    1866    |1256347·104| 4,891,901  10   9    |
    |  ”   1866     ”    1867    | 175838·208|   684,670   0   5    |
    |  ”   1867     ”    1868    | 127485·816|   496,397  17  11    |
    |  ”   1868     ”    1869    |1270778·550| 4,948,093  19   7    |
    +----------------------------+-----------+----------------------+
    +----------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------
    |           Date.            |Amount of|   Value of   |  Value of
    |                            |  Waste. |    Waste.    |   Sweep
    |                            |         |              | recovered.
    +----------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------
    |                            |  Ounces.|  £  _s._ _d._| £  _s._ _d._
    |Nov.  1851 to March 1852.   |  134·206|  522 11   3  | 89   1   3
    |April 1852 to March 1853    | 1851·888|7,210 15   9  |716  11  11½
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854    | 1804·559|7,026 10   0  |707   7   3½
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855    |  424·092|1,651  6   2  |222  14   3
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856    | 1039·798|4,148 14   3  |635   4   1½
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857    |  581·615|2,264 13   8  |422  13  10
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858    |   17·784|   69  4  11  |192  14  11
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859    |   16·603|   64 13   0  |209  16   7
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860    |   74·857|  291  9   6  |254   4   9
    |  ”   1860     ”    1861    |         |              |
    |  ”   1861     ”    1862    |  263·568|1,026  5   4  |545  10   5½
    |  ”   1862     ”    1863    |!+ 27·480|  107  0   1  |360   1  11
    |  ”   1863     ”    1864    | + 47·054|  183  4   4  |459   0   1
    |  ”   1864     ”    1865    |   43·491|  169  6  10  |295   9   3½
    |  ”   1865     ”    1866    |   57·612|  224  6   6  |350  3   9
    |  ”   1866     ”    1867    |    5·037|   19 12   3  |   Nil.
    |  ”   1867     ”    1868    |    3·357|   13  1   5  |   Nil.
    |  ”   1868     ”    1869    |   45·585|  177  9  11  |538   3   1
    +----------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------

    +----------------------------+-----------------+----------------+
    |           Date.            | Value of Waste  | Value of Sweep |
    |                            | per £1,000,000. | per £1,000,000.|
    +----------------------------+-----------------+----------------+
    |                            |   £   _s._ _d._ |  £   _s._ _d._ |
    |Nov.  1851 to March 1852.   |  381   8   10   |  65   0    3   |
    |April 1852 to March 1853    |  605  10    4   |  60   3    6   |
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854    |  661  19    7   |  66  12   10   |
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855    |  522   2    2   |  70   8    5   |
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856    |  493  12   11   |  75  11    8   |
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857    |  463  10   11   |  86  10    5   |
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858    |   14   3    0   |  39   7   10   |
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859    |   22  11    1   |  73   4    0   |
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860    |   76   7    7   |  66  12    5   |
    |  ”   1860     ”    1861    |                 |                |
    |  ”   1861     ”    1862    |   96   8    6   |  51   5    1   |
    |  ”   1862     ”    1863    |   11  13    8   |  39   6    7   |
    |  ”   1863     ”    1864    |   26   0    8   |  65   4    5   |
    |  ”   1864     ”    1865    |   22   6    2   |  38  18    6   |
    |  ”   1865     ”    1866    |   45  17   1    |  71  11    8   |
    |  ”   1866     ”    1867    |   28  12   10   |      Nil.      |
    |  ”   1867     ”    1868    |   26   6    7   |      Nil.      |
    |  ”   1868     ”    1869    |   35  17    5   | 108  15    2   |
    +----------------------------+-----------------+----------------+

    ! _Note._—The financial years 1862/1863 and 1863/1864 exhibit
              a _gain_ in the Coining Department.
                          C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY-MASTER OF THE MINT.

    ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMED IN THE COINING DEPARTMENT FROM OCTOBER 2ND,
1857, TO DECEMBER 17TH, 1857, INCLUSIVE.

The Coinage was completed in 53 Days. The Value of the coined Gold was
£4,495,748 4_s._ 10_d._

    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                  IN ROLLING ROOM.                  |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                     RECEIVED.                      |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |Weight of Gold Bars for Sovereigns                  |
    |   by Mint Office Beam               2110962·00 ozs.|
    |Weight of the same Bars                             |
    |   by Rolling Room Beam              2110939·71  ”  |
    |                                     ----------     |
    |Showing a minus difference upon                     |
    |   the Mint Office weight of              22·29  ”  |
    |                                     ==========     |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                     RETURNED.                      |
    +-------------------+-----------------+--------------+
    |                   |      As by      |    As by     |
    |                   |     Rolling     |     Mint     |
    |                   |      Room       |    Office    |
    |                   |      Beam.      |    Beam.     |
    +-------------------+-----------------+--------------+
    |                   |     Ounces.     |   Ounces.    |
    |Fillets            |    2016337·80   |              |
    |Stopped Pots       |       1256·15   |    1256·15   |
    |Brittle Bars       |      12142·36   |   12142·36   |
    |Ends               |      81207·18   |   81208·24   |
    +-------------------+-----------------+--------------+
    |                   |    2110943·49   |   94606·75   |
    |Deduct “received”  |    2110939·71   |  =========   |
    +-------------------+-----------------+              |
    |Increase during    |          3·78   |              |
    |work.              |                 |              |
    +-------------------+-----------------+--------------+
    |       The Ends were 4·49 per cent. on Bars.        |
    +----------------------------------------------------+

    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                  IN CUTTING ROOM.                  |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                     RECEIVED.                      |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |Gauged Fillets for Sovereigns                       |
    |   by Rolling Room Beam              2016337·80 ozs.|
    |Gauged Fillets for Sovereigns                       |
    |   by Cutting Room Beam              2016331·10  ”  |
    |                                     ----------     |
    |Showing a minus difference                          |
    |   upon the Rolling Room weight of         6·70  ”  |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                     RETURNED.                      |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      |   As by    |     As by      |
    |                      |  Cutting   |      Mint      |
    |                      |    Room    |     Office     |
    |                      |   Beam.    |     Beam.      |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      |  Ounces.   |   Ounces.      |
    |Cut Blanks            | 1250996·04 |                |
    |Scissel               |  755829·53 |    755830·74   |
    |Dumb Fillets          |    9540·00 |      9540·00   |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      | 2016365·57 |    765370·74   |
    |Deduct “received”     | 2016331·10 |                |
    +----------------------+------------+                |
    |Increase during       |      34·47 |                |
    |work.                 |            |                |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |The Dumb Fillets were 0·45 p. c. on Bars.           |
    |The Scissel was      35·80     ”      ”             |
    +----------------------------------------------------+

    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                 IN WEIGHING ROOM.                  |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                     RECEIVED.                      |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |Cut Blanks for Sovereigns                           |
    |   by Cutting Room Beam              1250996·04 ozs.|
    |Cut Blanks for Sovereigns                           |
    |   by Weighing Room Beam             1250989·11  ”  |
    |                                     ----------     |
    |Showing a minus difference                          |
    |   upon the Cutting Room weight of         6·93  ”  |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                     RETURNED.                      |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      |   As by    |     As by      |
    |                      |  Weighing  |     Mint       |
    |                      |    Room    |    Office      |
    |                      |   Beam.    |     Beam.      |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      |  Ounces.   |   Ounces.      |
    |Good Blanks           | 1163502·34 |                |
    |Rejected Blanks       |   87488·31 |   87488·57     |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      | 1250990·65 |   87488·57     |
    |Deduct “received”     | 1250989·11 |  =========     |
    +----------------------+------------+                |
    |Increase during       |       1·54 |                |
    |work.                 |            |                |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |The Rejected was 4·14 per cent. on Bars.            |
    |    ”    ”       6·99      ”       Blanks.          |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+

    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |          IN ANNEALING AND PRESS ROOMS.             |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                     RECEIVED.                      |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |Good Blanks for Sovereigns                          |
    |  by Weighing Room Beam              1163502·34 ozs.|
    |Good Blanks for Sovereigns                          |
    |  by Annealing Room Beam             1163487·44  ”  |
    |                                     ----------     |
    |Showing a minus difference upon                     |
    |  the Weighing Room weight of             14·90  ”  |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                     RETURNED.                      |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      |   As by    |     As by      |
    |                      | Press Room |     Mint       |
    |                      |   Beam.    |    Office      |
    |                      |            |     Beam.      |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      |  Ounces.   |   Ounces.      |
    |Coined Sovereigns     | 1154590·87 |   1154606·29   |
    |Pyx Pieces            |    1903·92 |      1909·21   |
    |Brockages             |    6926·03 |      6925·90   |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |One Sovereign         |            |                |
    |  missing.            |        ·25 |                |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |Loss of Weight        |            |                |
    |  by Annealing        |      57·05 |                |
    |  and Blanching       |            |                |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |                      | 1163483·12 |   1163441·40   |
    |                      |            |   ==========   |
    |Deduct “returned”     | 1163487·44 |                |
    +----------------------+------------+                |
    |                      |            |                |
    |Loss during work      |       4·32 |                |
    +----------------------+------------+----------------+
    |The Brockages were    0·33 on Bars.                 |
    |The Coined Money was 54·79 on Rough Bars.           |
    |  ”        ”         57·26 on Clean Bars.           |
    +----------------------------------------------------+

        Paid for Wages of Men
             and Boys.
     ------------------------------
     Rolling Fillets, £252·402225
     Cutting Blanks,  £260·624165
     Annealing Do.    £145·437875
     Coining Do.      £120·269875 = £778 14_s._ 8_d._
                            for £4,495,748 4_s._ 10_d._ Coined Money.

            Memorandum of
     Coined Gold Moneys delivered
          into Mint Office.
     ----------------------------
                       Ounces.
     October          252030·274
     November         594084·366
     December         308491·650
                    ------------
                     1154606·290
                    ============

               4495748·2 : 778·7 :: 1000 : 0·173208 = 3_s._ 5½_d._
                 4495748 : 36·64 :: 1000 : 1·955_d._
     The Wages paid for Melting 2,110,962 were
            £36·64 = 1·955_d._ on each 1,000 Sovereigns coined.
                   = 0·001955 on each Sovereign coined.
            1,000 Sovereigns cost 3_s._ 5½_d._ to coin
                   = 0·04156992 of a Penny for each Coin.

    _To the_ MASTER OF THE MINT.  GEORGE F. ANSELL, _January 20th, 1858_.

Reference to the table at page 84 will demonstrate the fact that, by
March, 1857, the average loss had fallen to £233·84, while in June
of the same year it had been reduced to £57·86, finally reaching so
low as £18·45 in December, 1857, the sums being in every way strictly
comparable with all those of that table, because the value of the sweep
is not taken into account in any case. As is usual in all discoveries,
the merit was soon found to be worth claiming, but that the credit was
due to me the Master himself admitted; and it is a fact that I was the
only new officer, while all those who had been previously employed were
still retained; and I feel that the Master confirmed his opinion when,
in consequence of the reforms I had effected, he obliged all officers
to follow such directions as I gave. In all cases where time would
permit, I made it a rule to obtain the Master’s sanction before giving
orders; but in cases of necessity I was empowered to act independently,
and did so act, he confirming such orders as I gave. It should also
be mentioned that so soon as I entered the Mint, Mr. Graham gave me
positive instructions not to allow either of the then chief officers
to interfere with the coining department. Nor would he permit a gold
coinage to be conducted in my continued absence. If, however, the
business of the Mint called me away, he, to induce the belief that I
was in town and on the spot, would pay my expenses to and from London
from his own pocket, and this he did on several occasions, because he
found that “in my absence unnecessary loss re-appeared.” The opposition
offered to the coining of bronze in the Royal Mint was so great, that
the Master wished me to go to the mint of Messrs. Heaton and Sons
at Birmingham, and there make such experiments as were necessary to
confirm the opinions I had formed on that subject. This firm, with a
generosity ever their own, permitted me to make, during a considerable
period, and free of charge, such experiments for the Mint as I deemed
necessary, rendering every possible assistance; but my investigations
and agreeable visit were brought suddenly to a close by the following
note from the Master:—

                       “ROYAL MINT, _9th January, 1861_.

    “MY DEAR SIR.

    “Owing to renewed pressure for gold coin, we find it necessary to
    begin rolling on Friday next. I am sorry to shorten your holiday,
    but your presence is very desirable as soon as gold enters the
    rolling room, and will relieve me of much anxiety.

    “The pyx pence received from Mr. Gausby to-day appear to be of fair
    quality. We should like to have a ton or two.
                                         “Very truly yours,
                                                 “THO. GRAHAM.
         “G. F. ANSELL, ESQUIRE,
    “At Messrs. Heaton & Sons, Birmingham.”

To demonstrate, then, the correctness of the theorem I had proposed,
it will be necessary to refer once more to the table on page 90, where
it will be seen that these results exhibit themselves in the financial
year April to March, 1857-58, when the loss in each million coined
was £14 3_s._, and the sweep recovered in that year was sold at the
rate of £39 7_s._ 10½_d._ for each million coined. If, therefore,
the proportionate loss be deducted from the value of sweep sold, we
have for the first[56] time in the experience of coiners a GAIN BY
COINING to the extent of £25 4_s._ 10½_d._ on each million coined, thus
approaching to the calculated gain of £59 4_s._, while in the next
financial year it will be observed that there was a loss of £22 11_s._
0½_d._, with a value of sweep recovered £73 4_s._ 0½_d._, giving an
absolute gain of £50 13_s._,[56] practically the result calculated
upon. To comprehend, then, the reason, why in the following years a
loss is again permitted, it will be necessary to enter into matters
of the inner life of the Mint. By the year 1859 the hatred excited
against me in consequence of these exposures had culminated to the
extreme. The Master, then desirous of finding a permanent position for
his brother,[57] listened to and encouraged any stories against myself,
notwithstanding the facts above related, and instead of consulting me
and sending necessary orders through me, as usual, sent written orders
openly by messengers, whose instructions were to read them to each
officer. These styled by himself “circulating orders,” were intended to
disgust all the officers who had assisted in the reforms, and it was
apparently determined by these and other like means to bring back the
management of the Mint into the former chaos of irregularities, that he
might make his brother’s appointment appear necessary.

[Footnote 56: See page 178.]

[Footnote 57: Mr. John Graham, who had been engaged “gratuitously” for
many months “to get his hand in,” was appointed, on the 23rd April,
1861, to an extra clerkship, at £20 a month, as Inspector of Bronze
Coins,—“as a warming-pan.”]

The disrespect thus exhibited to myself, and to the officers generally,
had to a certain extent its designed effect, for in 1859-60 the loss
rose to £76 7_s._ 7_d._, the sweep selling for £66 12_s._ 5_d._,
showing an absolute loss of £9 15_s._ 2_d._ It will now be necessary to
refer to a statement of losses and gains upon each _quarter_, because
the accounts were not officially balanced, the next statement being for
the years April, 1860, to March, 1862,[58] but the quarterly account
below[59] shows that the loss rose to 65·444 ounces, progressing
rapidly in June, 1861, to 105·823 ounces, while in March, 1862, it had
reached the ugly figure of 157·745 ounces. Before, however, this vast
loss had been reached, the officers consulted together with a view to
devise a means of arresting the downward course. About this time a
piece of gold was discovered secreted in the drag room tunnel. I felt
that this was a fact on which I could legitimately appeal to the Master
against his new system, and this I did on the 31st December, 1861, when
I represented to him that the reappearance of the losses was wholly
due to his withdrawal of support from his officers, and that if he
would not take the steps which were necessary, he alone must bear the
blame, for I had now represented the truth to him. He asked my advice;
so I told him boldly that he must come down officially to the works,
as of old, and show himself a supporter of honest men. After much
persuasion he assented to this advice, and came down. From that day the
losses ceased, yet the effects, so far as the accounts are concerned,
are exhibited till the quarter ending March, 1862; but the following
quarter, ending June, 1862, exhibits a natural gain of 17·942 ounces.
This table is of value, as showing the alternations of the apparent
gain or loss; for in some quarters the loss appears to be greater than
in others, arising from the fact that the bullion picked from the sweep
is in some cases included; but this is always included in the return of
the financial year.

[Footnote 58: See page 90.]

[Footnote 59: See page 95.]

       STATEMENT SHOWING THE LOSSES AND GAINS UPON EACH QUARTER, FROM
                      JUNE, 1856, TO SEPTEMBER, 1868.

    +------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
    |                  |        GOLD.          |       SILVER.       |
    |Quarter ending:—  +------------+----------+-----------+---------+
    |                  |  Loss.     |  Gain.   |   Loss.   |  Gain.  |
    +------------------+------------+----------+-----------+---------+
    |                  |  Ounces.   | Ounces.  |  Ounces.  | Ounces. |
    |June 30th, 1856   | 417·070    |          |           |         |
    |Dec. 31st,  ”     | 147·325    |     —    |  268·460  |         |
    |                  |      —     |     —    |    9·550  |         |
    |March 31st, 1857  |  17·220    |     —    |  690·314  |         |
    |June 30th,   ”    |      —     |     —    |   94·026  |         |
    |Sept. 30th.  ”    |      —     |     —    |  315·903  |         |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |  21·316    |          |           |         |
    |March 30th, 1858  |      —     |    4·673 |  500·335  |         |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |      —     |     —    |  315·114  |         |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |      —     |     —    |  211·250  |         |
    |March 31st, 1859  |  16·603    |     —    |  259·082  |         |
    |June 30th,   ”    |   9·417    |     —    |  185·358  |         |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |      —     |     —    |  240·890  |         |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |      —     |     —    |  403·593  |         |
    |March 31st, 1860  |  65·444[60]|     —    |   69·096  |         |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |      —     |     —    |  427·238  |         |
    |June 30th, 1861   | 105·823[61]|          |           |         |
    |Dec. 31st,  ”     |      —     |     —    |  606·765  |         |
    |March 31st, 1862  | 157·745[62]|     —    |       —   |   2·501 |
    |June 30th,   ”    |      —     |[63]17·942|  170·965  |         |
    |August 31st, ”    |   5·671    |          |           |         |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |   5·584    |     —    |  132·984  |         |
    |March 31st, 1863  |      —     |   20·793 |           |         |
    |June 30th,   ”    |      —     |     —    |  458·672  |         |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |  13·767    |          |           |         |
    |March 31st, 1864  |      —     |   60·821 |   48·845  |         |
    |June 30th,   ”    |      —     |   13·843 |    9·042  |         |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |      —     |     —    |  783·347  |         |
    |Dec. 31st,   ”    |  39·679    |          |           |         |
    |March 31st, 1865  |  17·660    |     —    |  147·780  |         |
    |June 30th,   ”    |      —     |     —    |  480·346  |         |
    |August 31st, ”    |      —     |    1·020 |  195·546  |         |
    |March 31st, 1866  |  58·632    |     —    |  230·515  |         |
    |May 30th,    ”    |   5·037    |     —    |  136·014  |         |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |      —     |     —    |  631·037  |         |
    |March 31st, 1867  |      —     |     —    |  260·352  |         |
    |June 30th,   ”    |   3·562    |     —    |  158·951  |         |
    |August 31st, ”    |      —     |    0·205 |   43·033  |         |
    |March 31st, 1868  |      —     |     —    |  271·540  |         |
    |June 30th,   ”    |      —     |     —    |  222·545  |         |
    |Sept. 30th,  ”    |  19·873    |     —    |   19·897  |         |
    +------------------+------------+----------+-----------+---------+

[Footnote 60: Specially referred to on page 94.]

[Footnote 61: Specially referred to on page 94.]

[Footnote 62: Specially referred to on page 94.]

[Footnote 63: Specially referred to on page 94.]

These are grave charges, but an inquiry could not fail to establish
their truthfulness. To return, then, to the table at page 90, it will
be observed that the loss of 1859-60 increased in the years 1860-62 to
£45 3_s._ 5_d._; but the stimulus applied by the renewed support of
the Master reproduced its legitimate results, and in 1862-63, instead
of a loss of bullion, there was a gain of £11 3_s._ 8_d._, which, with
the sweep, made £50 10_s._ 7_d._, and this increased in 1863-64 to £91
5_s._ 1_d._

        STATEMENT OF LOSSES INCURRED AND OF SWEEP RECOVERED.
        THIS REFERS WHOLLY TO GOLD IN THE MELTING DEPARTMENT.

    +---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
    |                           |  Weight of  |                     |
    |   Date—Financial Year.    |  Coinage.   |  Value of Coinage.  |
    |                           |             |                     |
    +---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
    |                           |   Ounces.   |      £     _s._ _d._|
    |Nov.  1851 to March 1852   |  351837·830 |  1,369,968  11   0  |
    |April 1852 to March 1853   | 3058360·186 | 11,908,489  19   5½ |
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854   | 2726011·580 | 10,614,407  11   9¾ |
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855   |  812219·517 |  3,162,579  14  10½ |
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856   | 2158391·456 |  8,404,236  14   7½ |
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857   | 1254703·786 |  4,885,502  17   2  |
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858   | 1256586·572 |  4,892,833  19   4  |
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859   |  736150·582 |  2,866,386   6   6¾ |
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860   |  980070·679 |  3,816,150   4   2  |
    |  ”   1860     ”    1861   |  861205·000 |  3,353,316  19   5  |
    |  ”   1861     ”    1862   | 1872214·638 |  7,289,935  14  11  |
    |  ”   1862     ”    1863   | 2351444·336 |  9,155,936   7   8  |
    |  ”   1863     ”    1864   | 1807332·130 |  7,037,299   9   8  |
    |  ”   1864     ”    1865   | 1949438·200 |  7,590,624  19  10  |
    |  ”   1865     ”    1866   | 1256347·104 |  4,891,901  10   9  |
    |  ”   1866     ”    1867   |  175838·208 |    684,670   0   5  |
    |  ”   1867     ”    1868   |  109580·129 |    426,677  12   1¾ |
    +---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
    +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
    |                           |Weight of|   Value of    |  Value of  |
    |   Date--Financial Year.   |  Lost   |  Lost Metal.  |   Sweep.   |
    |                           | Metal.  |               |            |
    +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
    |                           | Ounces. |   £  _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._|
    |Nov.  1851 to March 1852   |  91·456 |  356  2    1½ |133  0   2  |
    |April 1852 to March 1853   |1332·474 |5,188  6    4¾ |708 10   0  |
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854   | 728·088 |2,834 19   10½ |709  9   8¼ |
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855   | 223·811 |  871  9    3¼ |209  2   4¾ |
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856   | 867·277 |3,376 19    2¼ |805  5   4¾ |
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857   | 515·298 |2,006  8    9¾ |469  1   5¾ |
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858   | 275·452 |1,072 10   10  |262 18   5¾ |
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859   | 248·804 |  969 15    7¼ |231  2   1½ |
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860   | 259·069 |1,008 15    0  |240 16   3  |
    +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
    |  ”   1860     ”    1861   |         |               |            |
    |  ”   1861     ”    1862   |  17·668 |3,183 15   11  |729 19  10½ |
    +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
    |  ”   1862     ”    1863   | 636·395 |2,477 19    3  |590  2   7  |
    |  ”   1863     ”    1864   | 629·815 |2,452  6   10  |507 11   0  |
    |  ”   1864     ”    1865   | 464·080 |1,807  0    8  |509 10   0  |
    |  ”   1865     ”    1866   | 585·622 |2,280  5    4  |535  5   0  |
    |  ”   1866     ”    1867   |  37·440 |  145 15    8  |   Nil.     |
    |  ”   1867     ”    1868   |    —    |     —         | 71 10   6  |
    +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
    +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+
    |                           |   Value of     |   Value of    |
    |   Date—Financial Year.    |  Lost Metal    |    Sweep      |
    |                           | per Million.   | per Million.  |
    +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+
    |                           |   £  _s._ _d._ |  £  _s._ _d._ |
    |Nov.  1851 to March 1852   |  259 18    9½  |  97  1   9¼   |
    |April 1852 to March 1853   |  435 13    7¾  |  59  9  10¾   |
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854   |  267  1    9¼  |  66 16  10    |
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855   |  275 11    1   |  66  2   5½   |
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856   |  401 16    3¾  |  95 16   4    |
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857   |  410 13   10¼  |  96  0   3¼   |
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858   | ‡219  4    1¼  | ‡53 14   8½   |
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859   | ‡337 19    7   | ‡80 12   6¼   |
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860   |  264 16    8   |  63  2   0    |
    +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+
    |  ”   1860     ”    1861   |                |               |
    |  ”   1861     ”    1862   |  297 10    1   |  68 11   9    |
    +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+
    |  ”   1862     ”    1863   |  270 12    9   |  64  9   0    |
    |  ”   1863     ”    1864   |  348  9    6   |  72  2   5    |
    |  ”   1864     ”    1865   |  238  1    2   |  67  2   5    |
    |  ”   1865     ”    1866   |  466  2    6   | 109  8   2    |
    |  ”   1866     ”    1867   |  212 18    6   |    Nil.       |
    |  ”   1867     ”    1868   |       —        | 167 12   6¾   |
    +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+

      This mark (‡) is intended to attract the attention when at
      pages 98, 103, these figures are discussed. To obtain the
      true amount of loss, deduct the value of the sweep from the
      value of the gold lost.

RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 1870.
THE LORD ROSSIE. NO. 2.

FROM THE MELTING DEPARTMENT OF THE ROYAL MINT.

A STATEMENT of the Weight and Value of the Gold Moneys coined in each
Financial Year from 1851 to 1869 inclusive, exhibiting the Weight and
Value of the Loss or Waste sustained in each year, as well as the Value
of Sweep recovered, and the average Proportion of such Loss or Waste
and Sweep recovered to each Million Pounds Sterling coined.

     +----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+
     |             Date.          | Weight of   |   Value of Coinage.  |
     |                            |  Coinage.   |                      |
     +----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+
     |                            |   Ounces.   |       £    _s._ _d._ |
     | Nov.  1851 to March 1852   |  351837·830 |  1,369,968  11   0   |
     | April 1852 to March 1853   | 3058360·186 | 11,908,489  19   5   |
     |   ”   1853     ”    1854   | 2726011·580 | 10,614,407  11  10   |
     |   ”   1854     ”    1855   |  812219·517 |  3,162,579  14  10   |
     |   ”   1855     ”    1856   | 2158391·456 |  8,404,236  14   7   |
     |   ”   1856     ”    1857   | 1254703·786 |  4,885,502  17   4   |
     |   ”   1857     ”    1858   | 1256586·572 |  4,892,833  19   4   |
     |   ”   1858     ”    1859   |  736150·582 |  2,866,386   6   7   |
     |   ”   1859     ”    1860   |  980070·679 |  3,816,150   4   2   |
     |   ”   1860     ”    1861   |  861205·000 |  3,353,316  19   5   |
     |   ”   1861     ”    1862   | 1872214·638 |  7,289,935  14  11   |
     |   ”   1862     ”    1863   | 2351444·336 |  9,155,936   7   8   |
     |   ”   1863     ”    1864   | 1807332·130 |  7,037,299   9   8   |
     |   ”   1864     ”    1865   | 1949438·200 |  7,590,624  19  10   |
     |   ”   1865     ”    1866   | 1256347·104 |  4,891,901  10   9   |
     |   ”   1866     ”    1867   |  175838·208 |    684,670   0   5   |
     |   ”   1867     ”    1868   |  127485·816 |    496,397  17  11   |
     |   ”   1868     ”    1869   | 1270778·550 |  4,948,093  19   7   |
     +----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+
    +----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+
    |             Date.          | Amount |    Value of   | Value of    |
    |                            |  of    |      Waste.   |  Sweep      |
    |                            | Waste. |               | recovered.  |
    +----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+
    |                            | Ounces.|   £  _s._ _d._| £  _s._ _d._|
    | Nov.  1851 to March 1852   |  91·456|  356  2    2  |133  0    2  |
    | April 1852 to March 1853   |1332·474|5,188  6    5  |708 10    0  |
    |   ”   1853     ”    1854   | 728·088|2,834 19   11  |709  9    8¼ |
    |   ”   1854     ”    1855   | 223·811|  871  9    3  |209  2    4¾ |
    |   ”   1855     ”    1856   | 867·277|3,376 19    2  |805  5    4¾ |
    |   ”   1856     ”    1857   | 515·298|2,006  8   10  |469  1    1¾ |
    |   ”   1857     ”    1858   | 275·452|1,072 10   10  |262 18    5¾ |
    |   ”   1858     ”    1859   | 248·804|  968 15    7  |281  2    1½ |
    |   ”   1859     ”    1860   | 259·069|1,008 15    0  |240 16    3  |
    |   ”   1860     ”    1861 } |        |               |             |
    |   ”   1861     ”    1862 } | 817·668|3,183 15   11  |729 19   10½ |
    |   ”   1862     ”    1863   | 636·395|2,477 19    3  |590  2    7  |
    |   ”   1863     ”    1864   | 629·815|2,452  6   10  |507 11    0  |
    |   ”   1864     ”    1865   | 464·080|1,807  0    3  |509 10    0  |
    |   ”   1865     ”    1866   | 585·622|2,280  5    4  |535  5    0  |
    |   ”   1866     ”    1867   |  37·440|  145 15    8  |   Nil.      |
    |   ”   1867     ”    1868   |  54·460|  212  1    0  | 71 10    6  |
    |   ”   1868     ”    1869   | 701·084|2,729 16   11  |788  7    4  |
    +----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+
     +----------------------------+------------------+------------------+
     |             Date.          |  Value of Waste  |  Value of Sweep  |
     |                            |  per £1,000,000. |  per £1,000,000. |
     +----------------------------+------------------+------------------+
     |                            |  £   _s._ _d._   |   £  _s._ _d._   |
     | Nov.  1851 to March 1852   |  259 18   10     |   97  1    9     |
     | April 1852 to March 1853   |  435 13    8     |   59  9   11     |
     |   ”   1853     ”    1854   |  267  1    9     |   66 16   10     |
     |   ”   1854     ”    1855   |  275 11    1     |   66  2    6     |
     |   ”   1855     ”    1856   |  401 16    4     |   95 16    4     |
     |   ”   1856     ”    1857   |  410 13   10     |   96  0    3     |
     |   ”   1857     ”    1858   |  219  4    1     |   53 14    8     |
     |   ”   1858     ”    1859   |  337 19    7     |   80 12    6     |
     |   ”   1859     ”    1860   |  264  6    8     |   63  2    0     |
     |   ”   1860     ”    1861 } |                  |                  |
     |   ”   1861     ”    1862 } |  297 10    1     |   68 11    9     |
     |   ”   1862     ”    1863   |  270 12    9     |   64  9    0     |
     |   ”   1863     ”    1864   |  348  9    6     |   72  2    5     |
     |   ”   1864     ”    1865   |  238  1    2     |   67  2    5     |
     |   ”   1865     ”    1866   |  466  2    6     |  109  8    2     |
     |   ”   1866     ”    1867   |  212 18    6     |     Nil.         |
     |   ”   1867     ”    1868   |  427  3    6     |  144  1    9     |
     |   ”   1868     ”    1869   |  551 13    4     |  159  6    6     |
     +----------------------------+------------------+------------------+
                              C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY-MASTER OF THE MINT.
     ROYAL MINT, _2nd March_, 1870.


In November, 1863, Mr. John Graham was appointed; but he did not
interfere in the coining department until about March, 1864. The
disastrous effects of his mismanagement now became apparent, and the
losses have again made, it is to be feared, an habitual appearance.
In the first year of his efforts, the loss per million[64] became £22
6_s._ 2_d._, the sweep selling for £38 18_s._ 6_d._, giving a gain of
£16 12_s._ 4_d._ only; in the next year, a gain of £25 14_s._ 7_d._;
and it was now determined, notwithstanding a written protest, that
the sweep and _scrap_ were not worth collecting, so they were lost.
The next two years exhibit absolute losses of £28 12_s._ 10_d._ and
£30 12_s._ 8½_d._ per million respectively, while in September, 1868,
a loss of 19·873 ounces is recorded as a balance; yet it is a fact
that no gold was ever produced to satisfy this balance, so that in my
opinion it will be correct to state that the loss is at the rate of
£70 14_s._ 5¾_d._ on each million coined. Unless upon the existence
of such facts, it is difficult to understand why the Mint authorities
should not publish annually an official statement of the loss or gain
made by coining gold and silver, as well as the amount coined; but,
that the whole details may be complete, it is now necessary to enter
upon the discussion of the melting-house accounts. The table on p. 96
exhibits the operations of that department upon the same gold as that
just discussed. If, as in the case of the table relating to the coining
department, the total loss between November, 1851, and March, 1857, be
reduced by the value of the sweep sold, it will appear to be, on gold,
£11,599·825, and this divided by £40,345,185·450, the total sum coined,
will give an average loss of £280 7_s._ 8¾_d._ per million coined,
when, as was admittedly the case, the gold scissel was saturated to
dropping with oil.[64] Let us now see if this loss be increased by the
reduction of the amount of oil which was formerly sent to the melter on
the scissel.

[Footnote 64: See page 90.]

When in 1857-58 the loss by coining was put a stop to, and a gain was
produced, it was roundly asserted that the melter’s account would show
that the _loss_, so far from being stopped, had only been transferred
from one department to another; but by examining the table now under
discussion, it will be seen that when, in 1857-58,[65] the _gain_ of
£25 4_s._ 10½_d._ occurred in the coining department, so far from
there being a CORRESPONDING LOSS in the melting-house, that which had
averaged £280 7_s._ 8¼_d._, fell to £165 9_s._ 4¾_d._,[65]—as will
be seen by deducting the sweep sold from the loss recorded in the
year 1857-58. When, in the next year, the gain by coining rose to £50
13_s._, the melter’s loss did not reach its former average amount, for
in that year, when he had as large an amount of brittle gold to contend
with as in 1858, his loss was £257 7_s._ 0¾_d._,[66] or still below the
old average; whereas, if from this period the loss be estimated, it
will be found that its average is £212 6_s._ 1_d._ per million coined,
as against £280 7_s._ 8¼_d._, or a clear saving of £68 1_s._ 7_d._
effected by lessening the amount of oil on the scissel (explained at
page 87); and this amount may fairly be added to the total sum saved
per million coined, which will be for coining £494, for melting £68
1_s._ 7_d._, making together £562 1_s._ 7_d._ on each million coined.
That the loss by melting should reach the extravagant sum of £212
per million coined—Mr. Mathison, the contractor under the Company of
Moneyers, made an average loss of £112 only—can hardly be maintained
even in the Royal Mint; that it does occur is indisputable. The cause
for it is not far to seek; yet it is hardly within my scope in this
place to point out the means by which it should be reduced to within
the limit of £100, which is demonstrably the maximum limit it should be
permitted to reach. This, then, is the state of affairs as regards loss
by the coining of gold.

[Footnote 65: See page 96.]

[Footnote 66: See page 96.]

Thus far I have considered the rate of loss at a period when such
loss was deemed to be _necessary_; its reduction when it was
demonstrated to be _unnecessary_, as resulting from preventible
causes, and, in continuation, the means whereby _loss should be
prevented to the establishment of the absolute profit_, if a correct
system be established throughout the Mint. I now proceed to show
the re-establishment of the old system of UNNECESSARY LOSS—loss
which should not and would not be permitted in any well-regulated
institution; but when men are permitted to travel at the expense of the
country to European Mints, with the simple object of finding reasons
why loss should arise, and authorities for its existence, we must hush
our surprise, and be thankful if that loss do not exceed the amount
heretofore reached. To me it appeared singular that the Mint Officials
should be present in the House of Lords and hear Lord Lansdowne state
from his place that “upon exact inquiry he had been assured that a
loss of one shilling on £100 was not an unreasonable sum,” without
subsequent protest against such a statement. It is more singular if
one should compare that estimated loss with what those Officials state
in their “Reports on European Mints;” but it is most singular, that by
studying the returns made by those Officials to the House of Lords, it
becomes apparent that throughout the whole affair there is exhibited
a great disregard of the exact truth. To make clear my view of the
case, I will adduce the three statements. Lord Lansdowne’s fixed sum
of a shilling on £100, is equivalent to £500 on a million; while Mr.
Fremantle, at page 7, “European Mints,” states that careful enquiry has
shown, that as regards melting “in all Mints, considerable allowance is
made for such loss, and that the ‘waste,’ shown to have existed of late
years in the English Mint has not been excessive.” The return shows
that between 1866-69 it averaged £296 per million.[67] Mr. Roberts
says: “In the English Mint the amount of loss on gold by melting is
considered to be 0·173 per mille, or a grain on the troy pound;” that
is to say, £173 on a million. Why cannot these Authorities agree? Lord
Lansdowne, of course, speaks on instructions received, probably from
Mr. Fremantle, who thus exhibits his inability to agree with himself,
and agreement with his fellow-traveller seems hopeless; for whereas Mr.
Fremantle reduces Lord Lansdowne’s loss from £500 to £296, Mr. Roberts
reduces the latter sum nearly 50 per cent., and states it at £173.

[Footnote 67: See pages 97, 101.]

I will now refer to the returns made to the order of the House of Lords
on the motion of Lord Kinnaird, and which, for this purpose, I have
printed on pages 91, 97, opposite the tables obtained from the same
source whence these returns were made. By the return (see page 97) the
Mint Authorities clearly admit that whereas the loss by melting was
in 1866-67 only £212 18_s._ 6_d._, it became, in 1867-68, £283 1_s._
9_d._, and increased to £392 6_s._ 10_d._ in the subsequent year, as
will be seen if the value of the sweep be deducted from that of the
waste. It appears to me that such startling facts require attentive
enquiry, especially if it be borne in mind that the loss by melting
as shown in the return was so little as £165 9_s._ 5_d._ in 1857-58.
Since, however, it is now the custom in the Mint to pass the bars for
coining, directly from the melting-house to the coining department—in
accordance with the recommendation made by me in my Report to the
Master of the Mint dated 29th of January, 1859—so as to bring the whole
operation of coining under one responsible officer, as I therein urged,
it is but right I should give the Mint the benefit of any advantage
that can be obtained by a retrospective treatment of accounts, and
therefore I will refer to the table on page 101 which shows the final
result of operations conducted in the coining and melting departments.
In cases where gain was made by coining I will deduct such gain from
the loss by melting, and where loss by coining took place I will add it
to that by melting. Thus treated then, the loss by melting and coining
for 1866-67 becomes £241 11_s._ 4_d._, for 1867-68 £309 8_s._ 4_d._,
and for 1868-69 £319 9_s._ 1_d._, or a steadily increasing amount, as
will be seen subsequently on page 104.

As regards loss on gold, enquiry would prove that a remarkable
oblivion to all carefulness or the principles of economy exists in
the minds of Mint Officials; for this noble metal, being one of the
most dense as well as one of the most valuable, can be packed away
into a small space; hence the utmost care, guided by knowledge of the
subject, is necessary if waste is to be prevented. To start with that
indisputable axiom, “matter cannot be lost,” is but to have the truth
placed in unmistakable language; yet by the return[68] made to Lord
Kinnaird’s motion a most startling contradiction to this truism is
brought to light. The Mint Authorities, from the time of the government
occupation of the Royal Mint, have manifestly _omitted_ to think that
“matter cannot be lost,” and they have assumed that the mere fact of
subdivision must entail loss; but this fallacy is at once dissipated
if Lord Kinnaird’s idea be adopted. He, in his speech in the House of
Lords, said: “If any of your lordships will place a thousand sovereigns
in a box, and cause the box to be shaken until the sovereigns have
reduced themselves to impalpable powder, and will then weigh the
dust—gold-dust—produced, it will be found that the dust now weighs the
exact weight of the sovereigns before shaking.” So apt an illustration
would be spoiled by comment, yet we find that the return (see page
102) exhibits the fact that the Mint has paid to the Bank of England
sums varying from £1,132 to as low as £161 for each million of gold
coined into sovereigns. Now the processes necessary to the conversion
of gold into sovereigns is merely one of subdivision—of less degree
than absolute powdering—therefore it is quite clear there can be no
loss of gold. If there be any missing, it is because it is misplaced.
Misplaced gold is practically lost, because Mint experiences appear to
be adverse to the finding of the place of secretion. By this return it
appears that the Mint has actually paid so large a total sum as £59,084
1_s._ 4_d._, in seventeen years to the Bank of England for gold which
should have been returned to that institution. The Government of Mr.
Gladstone, professedly desiring to economise governmental expenditure,
permits this!!!

[Footnote 68: See page 102.]

While it is the opinion of the Government that LOSS IS REASONABLE, it
is hopeless to expect a stoppage of that which should not be permitted;
yet it is right to state that these losses are not only demonstrably
unnecessary, but that they have been proved by practice to be capable
of great reduction, as shown by the following table, compiled from the
returns before quoted on pages 91, 97.

STATEMENT showing the ultimate Loss by Coining Gold, by Melting Gold,
and the Gain by Coining Gold, as also the absolute Loss resulting from
both operations, from 1851 to 1869. Compiled from the Returns for which
_Lord Kinnaird_ moved.

    AVERAGE RATE FOR EACH MILLION COINED.

    +---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
    |     Date.     | Ultimate _Loss_ by  | Ultimate _Gain_ by |
    |Financial Year.| Coining £1,000,000  | Coining £1,000,000 |
    |               |        Gold.        |        Gold.       |
    +---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
    |               |       £   _s._ _d._ |      £  _s._ _d._  |
    |1851-1852      |      315   8    7   |                    |
    |1852-1853      |      545   6   10   |                    |
    |1853-1854      |      595   6    9   |                    |
    |1854-1855      |      451  13    9   |                    |
    |1855-1856      |      418   1    3   |                    |
    |1856-1857      |      377   0    6   |                    |
    |1857-1858      |                     |      25   4  10    |
    |1858-1859      |                     |      50  12  11    |
    |1859-1860      |       9   15    2   |                    |
    |1860-1862      |      45    3    5   |                    |
    |1862-1863      |                     |      51   0   3    |
    |1863-1864      |                     |      91   5   1    |
    |1864-1865      |                     |      16  12   4    |
    |1865-1866      |                     |      25  14   7    |
    |1866-1867      |      28   12   10   |                    |
    |1867-1868      |      26    6    7   |                    |
    |1868-1869      |                     |      72  17   9    |
    +---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
    |     Date.     | Ultimate _Loss_ by  | Ultimate _Loss_ by |
    |Financial Year.| Melting Ingots, &c. |  both Operations.  |
    |               | for £1,000,000 Gold.|                    |
    +---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
    |               |       £  _s._ _d._  |      £   _s._ _d._ |
    |1851-1852      |      162  17   1    |     478   5    8   |
    |1852-1853      |      376   3   9    |     921  10    7   |
    |1853-1854      |      200   4  11    |     795  11    8   |
    |1854-1855      |      209   8   7    |     661   2    4   |
    |1855-1856      |      306   0   0    |     724   1    3   |
    |1856-1857      |      314  13   7    |     691  14    1   |
    |1857-1858      |      165   9   5    |     140   4    7   |
    |1858-1859      |      257   7   1    |     206  14    2   |
    |1859-1860      |      201   4   8    |     210  19   10   |
    |1860-1862      |      228  18   4    |     274   1    9   |
    |1862-1863      |      206   3   9    |     155   3    6   |
    |1863-1864      |      276   7   1    |     185   2    0   |
    |1864-1865      |      170  18   9    |     164   6    5   |
    |1865-1866      |      356  14   4    |     330  19    9   |
    |1866-1867      |      212  18   6    |     241  11    4   |
    |1867-1868      |      283   1   9    |     309   8    4   |
    |1868-1869      |      392   6  10    |     319   9    1   |
    +---------------+---------------------+--------------------+

RETURN FROM THE ROYAL MINT TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, DATED
17TH FEBRUARY, 1870. THE LORD ROSSIE.

A Statement showing the individual sums paid by cheque by the Master of
the Mint to the Bank of England in consideration of any loss or waste
by coining gold, by melting gold, and by assaying gold on each occasion
of a balance of accounts by those institutions between 1851 and 1869
inclusive, specifying the proportional payments in relation to each
million coined during the several periods.

    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
     Date of Payment.|  Period during which  |  Amount of   |  Rate of
                     |     Waste occurred.   |   Cheque.    | Waste per
                     |                       |              |  Million.
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
                     |                       |   £   _s. d._|  £   _s. d._
    1852, March 31st |From 11th July 1851 to |   890  1  5  |  649  0  0
                     | 31st March 1852       |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
      ”   August 26th|From 1st April to 30th | 1,926 10  5  |  951  0  0
                     |  June 1852            |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
      ”  December 6th|From 1st July to 30th  | 2,051 16  9  |  882  0  0
                     |  September 1852       |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1853, June 17th  |From 1st October to    | 3,209  8  2  |  995  0  0
                     |  31st December 1852   |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
      ”   July 8th   |From 1st January to    | 5,270  1  3  |1,132  0  0
                     |  31st March 1853      |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
      ”  September   |From 1st April to 30th | 4,564  0  0  |1,026  0  0
            30th     |  June 1853            |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
      ”   December   |From 1st July to 30th  | 1,147  5  2  |1,112  0  0
            30th     |  September 1853       |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1854, August     |From 1st October 1853  | 4,583  0  0  |  878  0  0
            30th     | to 30th June 1854     |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1856, May 2nd    |From 1st July 1854 to  | 8,685 14  3  |  895  0  0
                     |  31st December 1855   |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1857, June 12th  |From 1st January 1856  | 5,265  6  0  |  803  0  0
                     |  to 30th May 1857     |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1858, May 5th    |From 1st June 1857 to  | 1,110 14  7  |  230  0  0
                     |  31st March 1858      |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1860, March 12th |From 1st April 1858 to | 1,282 16  7  |  360  0  0
                     |  30th June 1859       |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
      ”   June 27th  |From 1st July 1859 to  | 1,084  6  3  |  347  0  0
                     |  31st March 1860      |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1862, August 29th|From 1st April 1860 to | 4,272 11  7  |  389  0  0
                     |  31st August 1862     |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1863, March 30th |From 1st September 1862| 1,766 14  8  |  350  0  0
                     | to 31st December 1862 |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
      ”   June 3rd   |From 1st January to    |   606 19  4  |  161  0  0
                     |  31st March 1863      |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1864, September  |From 1st April 1863 to | 2,584 11 11  |  281  0  0
            6th      |  31st July 1864       |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1865, March 29th |From 1st August 1864 to| 1,320 16  9  |  419  0  0
                     |  31st December 1864   |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
      ”   October    |From 1st January to    |   438  6  3  |  169  0  0
            19th     |  30th September 1865  |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1866, July 4th   |From 1st October 1865  | 2,633 13  2  |  485  0  0
                     |  to 30th June 1866    |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1867, December   |From 1st July 1866 to  |   227  5 10  |  457  0  0
             12th    |  30th November 1867   |              |
    -----------------+-----------------------+--------------+-----------
    1869, November   |From 1st December 1867 | 4,162  1  0  |  461  0  0
           30th[69]   | to 30th November 1869 |              |
                     |                       +--------------+
                     |                      £ 59,084  1  4  |
    -----------------+--------------------------------------+-----------
                     C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY-MASTER AND COMPTROLLER.
     ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

[Footnote 69: A coinage having been in progress on the 31st of March,
1869, no waste account was made up at the close of the financial year
1868-69.]

In this table (page 101) care has been taken to remove every item
which can mislead, and therefore the ultimate or absolute loss to the
Mint is alone put forward; and while the subsequent table (page 102)
shows the money and its rate per million actually paid to the Bank for
loss; this shows the internal accounts of the operative departments in
the Mint only, so that every item which can reduce the loss has been
admitted, and it is therefore necessary to point out that each sum
exhibited in the last column as the ultimate loss by both operations,
is the rate for each million coined, all being under precisely similar
circumstances in every respect. I have excluded loss by assay.

If this table (page 101) be examined, it will be seen that between 1851
and 1857 there was an invariable statement of loss by coining; then
between 1857 and 1859 a period of gain; to be followed in the next two
periods, 1859 to 1862, by loss, which was again overcome; and for the
next four years a varying gain, alternated by two years of loss, and
followed finally by another statement of gain.

Enquiry may fairly be made why, if up to 1857 loss had been permitted,
gain could subsequently be established. The reply is, that the
management of the coining department was placed under myself by Mr.
Graham, and I acted firmly on my belief that “matter cannot be lost;”
hence, if the accounts were short, I made the men hunt the floors—not
the chimneys—carefully until the gold was found.

The Master of the Mint then discouraged my efforts, and the result
was rapidly increasing loss, until I placed on the Master[70] the
responsibility of such loss, when there returned four years of gain,
thus once more proving that under proper management loss would not
occur; but from this period I was removed from responsible management,
and the result was a return to the habitual loss. This would appear to
have been overcome in the year 1868-1869, for in that year a gain to
the extent of £72 17_s._ 9_d._ (see Return, page 91) is exhibited. It
will be necessary to examine this gain to see how far it is real, and
the proof is at hand that it is obtained under false pretences.

For special reasons which are not exhibited,[71] the figures relating
to 1851-1852 on the table at page 96 are fictitious; the fact being
that losses which should have been stated are excluded. If, however,
the table from 1852 to 1869 be examined it will be observed that the
ultimate loss by melting varies considerably, but that in the year
1857-1858 it fell to £165 9_s._ 5_d._, while in that year a gain was
made by coining to the extent of £25 4_s._ 10_d._[72] This gain being
deducted from the loss by melting, leaves a final loss of £140 4_s._
7_d._, as will be seen in the last column at page 101. To test then
the gain shown in 1868-69 by the same rule, it will be observed that
while the coining department (see page 101) made a profit of £72
17_s._ 9_d._,[73] the loss by melting was £392 6_s._ 10_d._, or higher
in amount than it has been in _any previous year_, so that the gain
claimed for coining is _false_—it has not arisen—it is a STATEMENT OF
ACCOUNTS, obtained by sending inaccurate weights of bullion to the
melter, and thus shifting to that department the loss which fairly
belonged to the coiner. The same remark applies to the year 1865-1866,
when it will be seen that the system of loss fairly reset in.

[Footnote 70: See page 94.]

[Footnote 71: See page 83.]

[Footnote 72: See page 90.]

[Footnote 73: See also page 91.]

BONA FIDE GAIN BY COINING GOLD IN ITS FINAL OUT-TURN is only to be
obtained by the possession of a firm belief in the impossibility
of legitimate loss, and by entrusting the operations of coining to
such men as appreciate the fact that it is atoms which build up the
universe. I proved, and maintained my assertion for years, that there
should be no loss, but on the other hand gain, by coining gold, and
this I did with a reduction in the loss by melting to a lower point
than has ever before or since been known, and with a total loss from
both causes of only £140 4_s._ 7_d._ (see pages 101-102); and, had
occasion served, it was always intended that I should direct the
melting of gold as I had done that of silver,[74] for as I had clearly
shown that coining could be fairly conducted without loss, the Master
was to have given me an opportunity to show the same facts in melting.

Of this loss of £140 4_s._ 7_d._ in the final out-turn of gold, it
should be explained that at that date the system of weighing to and
from the bank was such that there was on that coinage a difference of
weighing _against the Mint_ of £75 on each million, so that had just
weighments been made, my loss from all causes being reduced by that
amount would have been £65 4_s._ 7_d._ on each million coined.

With such facts established and stated in the return to the House of
Lords, it is at least singular that Lord Lansdowne should support his
assertion that 1_s._ on £100 is a moderate and fair loss, by stating
that this is also the opinion of eminent refiners in London. In my
experience refiners do not know what their losses are, for their
customers bear them. By special agreement with Sir A. Rothschild, the
Mint pays 4_d._ per ounce on the total sent for refining, and receives
back all the gold and silver; but the general public, by previous
agreement, submit to a deduction of weight, and thus pay the expenses
of refining. Mr. Graham, in his paper published after his brother’s
failure to conduct the gold coinage as I had done, fixed the loss at
£300 on a million. Lord Lansdowne now fixes it at 1_s._ on £100; that
is, at the rate of £500 on a million; and this sum is being rapidly
approached, for Lord Kinnaird’s return shows that for the past three
years it has averaged £464.[75] And since such a loss is to be borne
and pleasantly spoken of by _Mr. Lowe_, the Master of the Mint, as
“going up the chimney,” it is well to see if that can take place.

[Footnote 74: See page 136.]

[Footnote 75: See page 102.]

The volatilization of gold and silver requires an extremely high
temperature. This temperature is never reached in melting the precious
metals for coinage; therefore vapour of gold or of silver cannot by
any possibility be conveyed into the chimney; consequently, cannot
be found there. That this statement is true, has been demonstrated
satisfactorily in Brussels, where the chimneys were discreetly
searched to find the silver which the contractors were informed would
be found: the chief contractor assured me that they failed to find
the most minute trace of either silver or gold. Yet Mr. Roberts,
at page 23, “European Mints,” says, “The precious metals actually
volatilized may be arrested by condensation. This point has received
much attention in the Roman Mint, where the flues of the gold melting
furnaces have been placed in communication with condensing chambers
of simple construction, the adoption of which has been attended with
very satisfactory results.” On page 17 he has already said “I strongly
recommend that a condensing chamber be attached to the flues of the
gold melting furnaces. Such chambers have not hitherto been used in
the Mint in this country, but their advantage has been proved in the
Roman Mint, where they have been the means of effecting a considerable
saving.”

It is with regret that one sees men entrusted with the control of so
great a work as our coinage, making propositions on the authority of
the Roman Mint, whose gold coinage is perhaps the smallest in Europe.
If, however, Mr. Roberts should conduct on a large scale the plan _he
has devised_ for removing the obnoxious properties from brittle gold,
these chambers may become useful. In the meantime the present Mint
chimneys have the accumulations of more than sixty years, and it would
be quite worth while to pull them down and obtain the £59,000[76] which
the Mint admits to have lost (see page 101). Are the chimneys lined
with finely-divided gold, or does that metal accumulate in ingots?
if the latter be the case, their draught must be slightly impeded,
for fifty-nine thousand pounds worth of gold would more than fill an
imperial bushel; in the popular view a “thousand sovereigns fill a
quart measure.” If Mr. Roberts should fail to find any trace of gold,
he can re-consider his proposition; should he, however, find the sum
which has been supposed to be lost, that treasure will pay the cost of
new chimneys.

[Footnote 76: See page 102.]

If, instead of Lord Lansdowne appealing to Lord Kinnaird’s generosity
to leave unsaid things which should be said, his Lordship would
refute the facts and figures which Lord Kinnaird places before their
Lordships’ House, it seems probable that the question would be
settled; but while Lord Lansdowne simply pleads that “the person who
supplies information to Lord Kinnaird is only a dismissed clerk,”
it becomes manifest that the facts placed before Lord Kinnaird are
awkward to contradict, and still more awkward to explain, except by
the painful delusion Lord Lansdowne adopts—that “his lordship confuses
the accounts.” It may fairly be admitted that the accounts furnished
by the Mint Authorities to the House of Commons are stated in such a
manner that bankers and merchants find it impossible to comprehend
them, and to arrive at their meaning, more than one banker in London
_has applied to me_ to unravel those statements which have been
characterised as “such that if our younger clerk were to present them
he would be dismissed our service.” Still, that Lord Kinnaird has not
fallen into this error has, it is hoped, been now made fully manifest.
Lord Lansdowne, in continuation, stated that “the author of this book
appears to have left unnoticed the losing operations in the Mint, and
Lord Kinnaird seems to have fallen into the trap.” Had Lord Lansdowne
looked into the book he thus criticized, he would have found that
each process of gain and loss is treated at considerable length, but
none with more detail than the processes of the melting both for gold
and silver, as he will learn if he will refer to the book, now out of
print, but a copy of which is in the Mint Library—for gold melting,
at pages 69, 74, 81, 82, 83; and for silver melting, at pages 101,
104, 109, 111, where it will be clearly seen that these losses are
dwelt upon and shown to be inexcusable. The returns upon which I have
thus commented are also of importance as introducing a new system in
accounts—that of altering such accounts without reason assigned or
explanation given. If the return on page 91 be examined for the year
April 1867 to March 1868, it will be seen that a variation exists
between it and my table on page 90; for whereas I state the value
of the coinage for that year at £426,677 12_s._ 1¾_d._ and the loss
at 3·357 ounces, or at the rate of £30 12_s._ 8¼_d._ on the million
coined, the return states the money coined at £496,397 17_s._ 11_d._;
and leaving unaltered the _amount of loss_, shows it to be at the rate
of £26 6_s._ 7_d._ per million coined, a similar alteration has been
made in the account of the melting department. Seeing that my figures
were those supplied by the then Deputy Master to the late Master of
the Mint, I cannot comprehend why those accounts should be issued by
Mr. Fremantle, who has entered the Mint since that gentleman’s death,
with a variation in the figures, but I shall presently show that such a
proceeding is not confined to this one transaction.

While the subject of accounts is under notice, I think it right to
observe upon a passage in Mr. Fremantle’s “Report on European Mints,”
at page 7, in which that gentleman says—

    “I propose, also, that the ‘sweep,’ under which term are
    comprised dust collected from the floors, carbonaceous
    deposits from flues, ground-up crucibles, &c., should be
    treated in the Mint, instead of being sold, as at present,
    to the highest bidder. It will be important to determine
    what metallurgical process should be adopted with a view
    of carrying this intention into effect; but the step
    cannot fail to be advantageous to the Mint, not only as
    tending to economy, but also more especially as enabling
    the _department to substitute a real for a fictitious
    statement of ‘waste,’ the regulations of the public
    service_ NOT ALLOWING THE PROCEEDS OF THE ‘SWEEP’,
    _when sold to the public, to be brought to account_
    AS A SET-OFF AGAINST THE GROSS AMOUNT OF LOSS.”

that while I quite appreciate his thus carrying out the suggestion I
never ceased to urge, I do object to his stating that which is hardly
true as indicated by the passages I have marked. Such a statement must
have been a slip of the pen, as it is but necessary to refer to the
returns made to the House of Lords[77] to exhibit the fact that these
accounts are now kept and actually published to Parliament, and in my
own knowledge, those returns are accurate—not false—for I saw much of
the money paid for the sweep, which I delivered to the purchasers on
the authority of Mr. Barton. There is no sense in which these returns
can be said to be false unless in the one year I have pointed out. If
they be false, is it not a serious matter for any one to sign his name
and submit them as accurate to Parliament?

Let us, then, turn to the accounts, and see how far the other expenses
are unnecessarily inflated—and why? In such a consideration it will be
necessary to revert, as in the case of losses, to the earlier periods
of the Government occupation of the Mint; and, without going too far
into details, it may be stated that the average amount of _rejected
work_ (see page 44) reached, in some instances, 70 per cent.; but if
the averages for sovereigns be taken as extending over long periods, a
good general knowledge may be gained, thus:—

In 1855, between June 6th and August 13th, the highest was 40·51 per
cent., the lowest 13·13 per cent., the mean of 41 days giving 21·49 per
cent.; while, at that period, the coined money was 43·53 per cent. on
the clean bars.

In 1856, from January 2nd to January 22nd inclusive (18 working days),
the highest was 21·48 per cent., the lowest 12·72 per cent., the mean
of 18 days giving 18·51 per cent.; while, at that period, the coined
money was 38·39 per cent. on the clean bars.

In 1856, during a short coinage I reduced its average amount to 13·78
per cent., the coined money increasing to 41·74 per cent. on the clean
bars; but, as shown at page 92, this improved in 1857 to 6·99 per
cent., while the coined money rose to 57·26 per cent. on the clean bars.

In 1860, from January 4th to February 18th inclusive (41 days), the
highest was 7·71 per cent., the lowest 2·33 per cent.; the mean of 41
days was 4·11 per cent., which by the file was reduced to 2·07 per
cent.;[78] while, at that period, the coined money was 57·43[79] per
cent. on the clean bars.

[Footnote 77: See pages 91, 97, 133, 135.]

[Footnote 78: See Master’s Letter to Treasury, page 179.]

[Footnote 79: See my Report to the Master of the Mint, March 8, 1860.]

Before arriving at definite conclusions as regards the amount of
rejected work, it will be necessary to understand that up to the 2nd
of August, 1861, the remedy[80] allowed in practice was 0·30 grain,
and that in proportion as the remedy is reduced, the amount of rejected
is increased; it is also the case that when work is good all the
blanks or coins approach the standard weight, but when it is bad they
as invariably go to the side or margin of the remedy. The following
table exhibits the amount per cent. of rejected work[81] which took
place, with the various remedies; and these facts once determined, are
to be remembered, because the rejected will in all cases bear these
proportions to each other. In this table sovereigns are alluded to.

[Footnote 80: See Remedy explained at page 39.]

[Footnote 81: See page 44.]

                   REMEDY IN PARTS OF A GRAIN.
    +----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
    |                | 0·30 | 0·25 | 0·24 | 0·23 | 0·22 | 0·21 | 0·20 |
    |                |Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|
    +----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
    |Average in 1860 |4·00  | 8·00 | ...  | ...  | ...  | ...  |12·00 |
    |    ”      1861 |...   |10·00 |13·00 |15·00 |15·00 |18·00 |19·00 |
    |    ”       ”   |5·10  |10·50 | ...  | ...  | ...  | ...  |19·66 |
    +----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

These considerations had no weight when the Coinage Bill was being
hurriedly passed—at late hours, so as to avoid discussion on its
clauses—by the House of Commons. It in due course reached the House
of Lords, where Lord Kinnaird moved a clause—which would have been
greatly to the benefit of the Mint had it been adopted—to the effect
that the remedy on the individual piece should be 0·2568 grain; that
is—the remedy from the old scale under the Mint Indenture proportioned
to one coin. This Coinage Bill introduced a new principle, and it would
have been wise had it given the Mint every chance of success. Instead,
however, of proceeding cautiously, his lordship’s motion was rejected
and the remedy declared fixed at 0·2000 grain, thus necessitating the
use of a working remedy of 0·1700 grain, or perhaps 0·1500 grain, and
the consequent rejection for re-melting of “_only_ 15½ per cent. of
the whole of the money coined.” My experience tells me, more probably
of about 35 per cent.; but upon this head I will allow Mr. Napier to
speak. He says, “Indeed, roundly taken, the returns to the crucible
may be put at nearly 50 per cent.; so that to produce a given weight
of finished coin, something like double the weight of metal must be
melted. So long as this state of things lasts, the process up to the
formation of the blank must be regarded as imperfect.” It is not the
_process that fails_, it is the want of power _to conduct that process_
which causes so candidly admitted a continuation of the fatal system
re-introduced by Mr. John Graham.

The proportioned legal remedy was 0·2568 grain. Now we can only wish
to be within the law. If, therefore, 0·25 grain had been adopted as
a _working remedy_, the automaton balances are so accurate that no
piece could ever be found beyond the remedy, on either side, and an
immense expense would be saved in labour alone, for the rejected
goes to the melting-pot; yet, owing to a mistake on the part of the
Bank of England, 0·20 grain was used in 1861, but under my urgent
representation this was relaxed because of the extravagant expense, and
for some years 0·24 grain was used, in accordance with the following
order from the Master:—“Mr. Ansell is requested to increase the remedy
on sovereigns from 0·20 grain to 0·24 grain, and the half-sovereigns in
a similar proportion.—14th of August, 1861. (Signed) THOMAS GRAHAM.”
Under other management, since the early part of 1868, the working
remedy has been reduced to 0·15 grain. Such useless waste, it is to be
hoped, has only to be pointed out that this clause of the New Coinage
Act may be repealed.

Following these considerations, the next table will show the rate
per cent. of rejected sovereigns and half-sovereigns, as well as the
remedies practically employed in regular work. They are, in all cases,
the average results of whole coinages of each specific year mentioned.

    +------+---------+---------+-----------------------+--------------+
    |      |         |         |     By Filing Metal   |              |
    |      |         |         |    from the Edges of  |              |
    |      |         |         |    the Heavy Blanks   |              |
    |      |         |         |    they were reduced  |  Sovereigns  |
    |      |         |  Half-  |     to the Standard   | coined (that |
    |Date. |Sovereign|Sovereign|     Weight when the   | is, weighed  |
    |      | Blanks. | Blanks. |      original rate    |after the Coin|
    |      |         |         |        per cent.      | was struck,  |
    |      |         |         |     was reduced to,   | so the heavy |
    |      |         |         |           on          | were melted).|
    |      |         |         +-----------+-----------+              |
    |      |         |         |Sovereigns.|   Half-   |              |
    |      |         |         |           |Sovereigns.|              |
    +------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+--------------+
    |      |Per Cent.|Per Cent.| Per Cent. | Per Cent. |  Per Cent.   |
    | 1855 |  21·49  |  32·29  |    ...    |     ...   |       ...    |
    | 1856 |  14·50  |  20·04  |    ...    |     ...   |       ...    |
    | 1857 |   7·44  |  16·13  |    ...    |     ...   |       ...    |
    | 1858 |   4·50  |  11·16  |    ...    |     ...   |       ...    |
    | 1859 |   5·67  |   8·86  |    4·14   |     5·52  |       ...    |
    | 1860 |   3·62  |  10·08  |    1·69   |     4·65  |       ...    |
    | 1861 |   5·75  |   ...   |    3·36   |     ...   |       ...    |
    |   ”  |  21·43  |   ...   |   12·22   |     ...   |       ...    |
    |   ”  |  16·07  |   ...   |    6·68   |     ...   |       ...    |
    | 1862 |   9·48  |  17·06  |    3·37   |    11·53  |       ...    |
    | 1863 |   9·68  |   ...   |    4·25   |     ...   |       ...    |
    |   ”  |  18·76  |  18·08  |    ...    |    11·69  |       ...    |
    |   ”  |  18·76  |   ...   |    6·76   |     ...   |       ...    |
    |   ”  |   ...   |  28·79  |    ...    |    12·86  |       ...    |
    | 1864 |  15·15  |  28·27  |    5·07   |    12·79  |       ...    |
    |   ”  |   ...   |   ...   |    ...    |     ...   |       5·74   |
    | 1865 |   ...   |   ...   |    ...    |     ...   |       6·61   |
    | 1866 |   ...   |   ...   |    ...    |     ...   |       9·87   |
    | 1867 |   ...   |   ...   |    ...    |     ...   |       ...    |
    | 1868 |   ...   |   ...   |    ...    |     ...   |      17·82   |
    +------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+--------------+
    +------+------------+----------------------------+-----------------+
    |      |            |                            |                 |
    |      |            |                            |                 |
    |      |   Half-    |                            |                 |
    |      | Sovereigns |                            |                 |
    |      |coined (that|    Remedies employed on    |   Remedies      |
    |Date. | is, weighed|         Sovereigns         |   employed      |
    |      | after the  |       on each piece.       |   on Half-      |
    |      |  Coin was  |                            |  Sovereigns     |
    |      | struck, so |                            |      on         |
    |      | the heavy  |                            |  each piece.    |
    |      |   were     |                            |                 |
    |      | melted).   |                            |                 |
    |      |            |                            |                 |
    +------+------------+----------------------------+-----------------+
    |      | Per Cent.  |    Parts of a Grain.       |Parts of a Grain.|
    | 1855 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  |  ... | 0·30 |  ...   |  0·15  |
    | 1856 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  |  ... | 0·30 |  ...   |  0·15  |
    | 1857 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  |  ... | 0·30 |  ...   |  0·15  |
    | 1858 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  |  ... | 0·30 |  ...   |  0·15  |
    | 1859 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  |  ... | 0·30 |  ...   |  0·15  |
    | 1860 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  |  ... | 0·30 |  ...   |  0·15  |
    | 1861 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  |  ... | 0·30 |  ...   |  ...   |
    |   ”  |      ...   | ...  |  0.20 |  ... |  ... |  ...   |  ...   |
    |   ”  |      ...   | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  ...   |  ...   |
    | 1862 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  0·12  |  ...   |
    | 1863 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  ...   |  ...   |
    |   ”  |      ...   | ...  |  ...  |  ... |  ... |  0·12  |  ...   |
    |   ”  |      ...   | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  ...   |  ...   |
    |   ”  |      ...   | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  0·12  |  ...   |
    | 1864 |      ...   | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  0·12  |  ...   |
    |   ”  |     14·76  | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  0·12  |  ...   |
    | 1865 |     12·60  | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  0·12  |  ...   |
    | 1866 |     15·64  | ...  |  ...  | 0·24 |  ... |  0·12  |  ...   |
    | 1867 |     20·28  | ...  |  ...  |  ... |  ... |  0·12  |  ...   |
    | 1868 |      ...   | 0·15 |  ...  |  ... |  ... |  ...   |  ...   |
    +------+------------+------+-------+------+------+--------+--------+

It will thus be seen that of the whole mass of gold coined in 1868,
17·82 per cent. of sovereigns and 20·28 per cent. of half-sovereigns
went respectively to the melting-pot—a state of things which no
contractor would tolerate for a week; yet this waste has continued
throughout 1870. Now, there can be no reason why the bullion should not
again be weighed in the form of blanks, and the heavy blanks reduced
by the file, as they were in former days; for it must be remembered
that that file[82] has met with approval and adoption by the highest
authorities on coining in their respective mints, and there is manifest
folly and waste in sending fully 50 per cent. more rejected work to
the melter than is absolutely necessary. These remarks will be more
impressive if the table of rejected work be examined for 1861, where
it will be seen that, with a remedy of 0·30 grain, the rejected was
5·75, reduced to 3·36 per cent., whereas it immediately went up to
21·43, reduced to 12·22 per cent., when, on the 2nd of August, the
remedy was reduced to 0·20 grain; and that on the 14th of August, when
the remedy was increased to 0·24 grain, the rejected became 16·07, and
was reduced to 6·68 per cent., these being the figures obtained by
the total amounts passed through all the automaton machines. We will
next, then, see the effect of this extravagance in manufacture on the
total out-turn of coin, because this is the final test of the cost of
manufacture, it being readily understood that if 17 per cent. of the
whole coinage be remelted, whereas 2·07 per cent. used to suffice,
there must of necessity be a clear waste of labour to the extent
of 15 per cent. Therefore, not only is unnecessary labour exacted,
but also a large additional loss by melting is—under the present
Authorities—incurred, as well as the loss by coining (see pages 101,
103). Having considered this, it will be fitting that the subject of
wages paid to workmen shall receive attention, as a means to arrive at
the cost of coining a sovereign, and which, it may be here stated, has
been by others estimated at far too high a sum.

[Footnote 82: See pages 44-45.]

In discussing, then, the amount of coined money obtained from gold
bars, it will be necessary to enter into details of figures, and
to show not only the rate per centum of coin obtained from bars as
forwarded by the melter, but also the rate obtained from the clean
bars—that is, from bars whose ends have been sheared off, and from
the total weight of which the brittle bars and stopped pots have
been deducted, thus leaving none but solid workable bars called, in
practice, “clean bars,” as against the rough bars, which, indeed are
rough enough to deserve that title.

STATEMENT SHOWING THE RATE PER CENTUM OF MIXED COIN FROM ROUGH BARS OF
GOLD, AND THE RATE PER CENTUM OF SOVEREIGNS AND HALF SOVEREIGNS FROM
THOSE RESPECTIVE BARS. THE BRITTLE BARS AND STOPPED POTS ARE DEDUCTED.

    +-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    |           Coinage           |           |           |    Rate    |
    |      conducted between      |Mixed Bars,|Mixed Coin.|per cent. on|
    |        the Periods:—        | “Rough.”  |           |Mixed Bars. |
    |                             |           |           |            |
    +-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    |                             |  Ounces.  |  Ounces.  |            |
    |November 1856 to April 1857  | 1,103,403 |   456,575 |   41·37    |
    |October 1857 to March 1858   | 2,280,033 | 1,238,171 |   54·24    |
    |November 1858 to June 1859   | 1,955,961 |   915,530 |   46·80    |
    |January 1860 to March 1860   | 1,460,209 |   802,847 |   54·28    |
    |January 1861 to April 1861   | 1,707,098 |   862,329 |   50·51    |
    |June 1861 to March 1862      | 4,448,353 | 1,874,885 |   42·14    |
    |May 1862 to March 1863       | 4,534,377 | 2,354,805 |   51·93    |
    |October 1863 to June 1864    | 4,946,697 | 2,323,238 |   46·96    |
    |October 1864 to December 1864| 1,981,150 |   958,354 |   48·87    |
    |January 1865 to August 1865  | 1,129,772 |   518,673 |   45·91    |
    |November 1865 to May 1866    | 3,580,017 | 1,396,567 |   39·29    |
    |April 1867 to June 1867      |   305,418 |   127,576 |   41·77    |
    |July 1868 to August 1868     |   678,976 |   280,993 |   41·38    |
    +-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    +-----------------------------+---------+----------+------------+
    |           Coinage           |Sovereign|          |    Rate    |
    |      conducted between      |  Bars,  |Sovereigns|per cent. on|
    |        the Periods:—        |“Rough.” | Coined.  | Sovereign  |
    |                             |         |          |   Bars.    |
    +-----------------------------+---------+----------+------------+
    |                             | Ounces. | Ounces.  |            |
    |November 1856 to April 1857  |  480,704|  288,592 |    60·03   |
    |October 1857 to March 1858   |2,133,366|1,168,227 |    54·29   |
    |November 1858 to June 1859   |1,341,862|  592,325 |    44·14   |
    |January 1860 to March 1860   |1,185,227|  657,362 |    55·46   |
    |January 1861 to April 1861   |1,402,538|  717,010 |    51·12   |
    |June 1861 to March 1862      |4,448,353|1,874,885 |    42·14   |
    |May 1862 to March 1863       |4,237,267|2,220,713 |    52·40   |
    |October 1863 to June 1864    |4,557,216|2,166,112 |    47·53   |
    |October 1864 to December 1864|1,713,659|  847,357 |    49·44   |
    |January 1865 to August 1865  |  779,345|  373,340 |    47·90   |
    |November 1865 to May 1866    |2,676,226|1,041,926 |    38·11   |
    |April 1867 to June 1867      |   ...   |   ...    |      ...   |
    |July 1868 to August 1868     |  678,976|  280,993 |    41·38   |
    +-----------------------------+---------+----------+------------+
    +-----------------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
    |           Coinage           |   Half   |   Half   |     Rate     |
    |      conducted between      | Sovereign|Sovereigns| per cent. on |
    |       the Periods:—        |   Bars,  | Coined.  |Half Sovereign|
    |                             | “Rough.” |          |    Bars.     |
    +-----------------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
    |                             |  Ounces. |  Ounces. |              |
    |November 1856 to April 1857  |  622,699 |  167,983 |     26·97    |
    |October 1857 to March 1858   |  146,667 |   69,944 |     47·68    |
    |November 1858 to June 1859   |  614,099 |  323,203 |     52·63    |
    |January 1860 to March 1860   |  274,982 |  145,400 |     52·87    |
    |January 1861 to April 1861   |  304,560 |  145,319 |     47·71    |
    |June 1861 to March 1862      |          |          |              |
    |May 1862 to March 1863       |  297,110 |  134,092 |     45·13    |
    |October 1863 to June 1864    |  389,481 |  157,125 |     40·34    |
    |October 1864 to December 1864|  267,491 |  110,986 |     41·48    |
    |January 1865 to August 1865  |  350,427 |  145,332 |     41·47    |
    |November 1865 to May 1866    |  903,791 |  354,640 |     39·23    |
    |April 1867 to June 1867      |  305,418 |  127,576 |     41·77    |
    |July 1868 to August 1868     |          |          |              |
    +-----------------------------+----------+----------+--------------+

STATEMENT SHOWING THE GOLD BARS USED IN EACH COINAGE FROM NOVEMBER,
1856, TO AUGUST, 1868, AND THE RATE PER CENTUM OF ENDS, OF MIXED GOLD
COIN, AND OF SOVEREIGNS AND HALF SOVEREIGNS PRODUCED FROM THOSE BARS.

    +-----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+
    |                             |           |         |         |
    |           Coinage           |Mixed Bars,|  Ends   |Sovereign|
    |      conducted between      | “Clean.”  |cut from |  Bars,  |
    |       the Periods:—         |           |  Bars.  | “Clean.”|
    |                             |           |         |         |
    +-----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+
    |                             |   Ounces. |Per Cent.| Ounces. |
    |November 1856 to April 1857  | 1,057,776 |    4·13 |  460,851|
    |October 1857 to March 1858   | 2,192,798 |    3·82 |2,051,872|
    |November 1858 to June 1859   | 1,798,717 |    4·41 |1,210,447|
    |January 1860 to March 1860   | 1,414,516 |    3·13 |1,148,130|
    |January 1861 to April 1861   | 1,619,251 |    5·14 |1,330,448|
    |June 1861 to March 1862      | 4,215,722 |    5·22 |4,215,722|
    |May 1862 to March 1863       | 4,351,531 |    4·03 |4,066,506|
    |October 1863 to June 1864    | 4,566,032 |[83]7·60 |4,261,432|
    |October 1864 to December 1864| 1,851,724 |    6·48 |1,602,533|
    |January 1865 to August 1865  | 1,047,901 |    7·24 |  722,921|
    |November 1865 to May 1866    | 3,336,536 |    6·80 |2,494,243|
    |April 1867 to June 1867      |   291,696 |    4·50 |    ..   |
    |July 1868 to August 1868     |   612,857 |    9·57 |  612,857|
    +-----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+
    +-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+---------
    |                             |  Half  |  Mixed  | Sover- |   Half
    |           Coinage           | Sover- |  Coin,  |  eigns |Sovereigns
    |      conducted between      |  eign  |including|  from  |   from
    |       the Periods:—         |  Bars, |   Pyx   | “Clean”|  “Clean”
    |                             |“Clean.”| Pieces. |  Bars. |   Bars.
    +-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+---------
    |                             | Ounces.|Per Cent.|Per Cent|Per Cent.
    |November 1856 to April 1857  | 596,925|  43·16  |  62·62 |   28·12
    |October 1857 to March 1858   | 140,926|  56·39  |  56·93 |   49·63
    |November 1858 to June 1859   | 588,269|  50·89  |  48·93 |   54·94
    |January 1860 to March 1860   | 266,386|  56·75  |  56·43 |   54·54
    |January 1861 to April 1861   | 288,803|  53·18  |  53·88 |   50·03
    |June 1861 to March 1862      |   ...  |   ...   |  44·47 |
    |May 1862 to March 1863       | 285,025|  54·03  |  54·60 |   47·39
    |October 1863 to June 1864    | 304,600|  50·88  |  50·82 |   51·25
    |October 1864 to December 1864| 249,191|  51·75  |  52·87 |   44·53
    |January 1865 to August 1865  | 324,980|  49·49  |  51·64 |   44·72
    |November 1865 to May 1866    | 842,293|  41·80  |  41·77 |   42·10
    |April 1867 to June 1867      | 291,696|   ...   |   ...  |   43·70
    |July 1868 to August 1868     |   ...  |   ...   |  45·84 |
    +-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+---------

[Footnote 83: See pages 46, 92.]

The half-sovereigns shown in this table (page 111) at 26·97 per cent.
were coined in November, under the old system, but they are placed here
that these returns may be accurate. The effect of the reduction of the
remedy from 0·30 to 0·20 grain (which has been explained at page 107)
is evidenced in the amount of coin obtained in the period—June, 1861,
to March, 1862; yet it is fair to admit that some of this gold was
exceptionally bad, for the Bank of England, finding that the bad gold
of 1859 had been coined, paid the Mint the compliment to send at this
period some of a singularly rotten character, with an appearance almost
woolly; and if reference be made to the table of rejected at page 109,
this gold will be seen to have produced, with a remedy of 0·24 grain,
16·07, reduced to 6·68 per cent., over the remainder of the coinage,
thus making the disastrous effect of the reduced remedy more apparent.
As has been before stated, the gold of 1859 contained, besides a vast
amount of brittle gold, 0·45[84] per cent. of its whole weight of dumb
fillets. Then, coming to the period, October, 1863, to June, 1864, we
find a continued state of bad work, influenced by the remedy of 0·24
grain to a certain extent but to a much more marked degree by the new
system which was now introduced; and by referring to the next table, it
will be seen that the ends at one jump went up from 4·03 to 7·60 per
cent., because a mistaken opinion led to the shearing off the ends from
the bars in the rolling room. The order for the re-introduction of this
abandoned custom was in the following terms, so could not be set aside
by those who saw its _unwisdom_:—“In the practice of the rolling room,
Mr. John Graham is requested to cause not less than 3 inches from the
hollow end of each gold bar to be cut off before beginning the rolling,
with a view of keeping back the doubtful portion of the bar.—(Signed)
THOMAS GRAHAM. 7th December, 1863.” Grave as was this error, it was
surpassed by a real blunder, for at this period it was determined to
stop all fillets that appeared to exhibit any signs of brittleness,
thus hopelessly rejecting an immense bulk of really good work lest it
should contain any bad; whereas, had the proper course been adopted,
the good from each fillet should have been selected, as was the
_invariable_ custom under the MONEYERS and the small per-centage of
really bad fillets rejected. By this system the men were thoroughly
disheartened. To such a length was this mismanagement at last carried,
that the officers and men allowed things to take their course, feeling
sure that time would demonstrate the folly of the present system.
However, the extravagance has continued down to this day. Yet another
source of waste of labour was left; and even this was utilised. In the
working of the draw-bench, as well as the mill, there are at starting
many fillets so varying in thickness that it is not fair to make the
trier send them to the _cutters_ as regular work. It was the custom at
that period to detain these fillets to the end of the day, when they
were especially treated, cut at a special cutter, and the blanks sent
to be weighed—the good were reserved, but the bad were returned to the
trier, yet not charged to him as bad work, thus enabling him to save at
least 70 per cent. of, perhaps, 5,000 ounces per diem. Under the new
_régime_ this was not permitted, from sheer want of knowledge, although
its stoppage was condemned alike by officers and men. Causes such as
these reduced the average amount of coined sovereigns, from rough bars,
from 51 to 44 per cent., as will be seen by examining the table of
coined money obtained from _rough bars_.[85] By now referring to the
accompanying statement, the effect of this mismanagement will be seen,
for instead of an average of 52·40, only 48·48 per cent. of coin was
obtained from bars[86] that had been stripped of every fault that could
interfere with their producing power. Instead of yielding, as these
should have done, a larger proportion of coin, they really gave less
than the coin previously obtained from rough bars, as will be manifest
if this statement be consulted. But, that these facts may be more
clear, this abstract is made from the two previous tables, showing the
averages of coin obtained and the waste of labour by manufacture under
the present system, so clearly to exhibit the amount of loss in money
value by labour alone.

[Footnote 84: See pages 46, 92.]

[Footnote 85: See page 111.]

[Footnote 86: See page 110.]

    +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
    |                           |         On Rough Bars.        |
    |                           +-------+-----------+-----------+
    |            From           | Mixed |Sovereigns.|   Half    |
    |                           | Coin. |           |Sovereigns.|
    +---------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+
    |November 1856 to March 1863| 48·75 |    51·34  |   45·49   |
    |October 1863 to August 1868| 44·03 |    44·87  |   40·85   |
    +---------------------------+-------+----------+------------+
    |Waste per Centum           |  4·72 |     6·57  |     4·64  |
    +---------------------------+-------------------------------+------+
    |                           |             On Clean Bars.           |
    |                           +-------+-----------+-----------+------+
    |            From           | Mixed |Sovereigns.|   Half    | Ends.|
    |                           | Coin. |           |Sovereigns.|      |
    +---------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+
    |November 1856 to March 1863| 52·40 |   53·98   |   47·44   | 4·26 |
    |October 1863 to August 1868| 48·48 |   48·58   |   45·26   | 7·03 |
    +---------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+
    |Waste per Centum           |  3·92 |    5·40   |     2·18  | 2·77 |
    +---------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+

STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY COINED AND OF PYX PIECES BETWEEN
NOVEMBER, 1856, AND AUGUST, 1868.

    LEGEND:
        (A) = Money Coined:—Sovereigns and Half Sovereigns.
        (B) = Coined Money:—Sovereigns
        (C) = Coined Money:—Pyx Pieces.
        (D) = Coined Money:—Half Sovereigns.
        (E) = Coined Money:—Mixed Pyx Pieces.
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
    |         Coinage                 |           |           |        |
    |     conducted between           |    (A)    |    (B)    |  (C)   |
    |      the Periods:—              |           |           |        |
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
    |                                 |  Ounces.  |   Ounces. | Ounces |
    | November 1856 to April 1857     | 456111·568| 288314·570| 277·857|
    | October 1857 to March 1858      |1236713·674|1166819·294|1407·777|
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
    |December 1858 to January 1859[87]| 450090·524| 410119·648| 584·990|
    |March 1859 to June 1859[88]      | 464407·847| 181414·181| 207·494|
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
    | January 1860 to March 1860      | 801722·890| 656425·814| 936·549|
    | January 1861 to April 1861      | 861205·000| 715989·212|1021·293|
    | June 1861 to March 1862         |1872214·638|1872214·638|2670·720|
    | May 1862 to March 1863          |2351444·336|2217447·814|3265·725|
    | October 1863 to June 1864       |2320041·256|2163027·402|3085·452|
    | October 1864 to December 1864   | 957057·966| 846150·074|1207·216|
    | January 1865 to August 1865     | 518037·315| 372808·744| 532·079|
    | November 1865 to May 1866       |1394809·101|1040421·949|1504·848|
    | April 1867 to June 1867         | 127485·816|           |        |
    | July 1868 to August 1868        | 280608·540| 280608·540| 385·200|
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
    |         Coinage                 |           |           |        |
    |     conducted between           |    (D)    |   (C)     |  (E)   |
    |      the Periods:—              |           |           |        |
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
    |                                 |  Ounces.  |  Ounces.  |Ounces. |
    | November 1856 to April 1857     | 167796·998|  186·436  | 464·293|
    | October 1857 to March 1858      |  69894·380|   49·947  |1457·724|
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
    |December 1858 to January 1859[89]|  39970·876|   28·404  | 613·394|
    |March 1859 to June 1859[90]      | 282993·693|  210·844  | 418·338|
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
    | January 1860 to March 1860      | 145297·076|  103·747  |1040·296|
    | January 1861 to April 1861      | 145215·788|  103·618  |1124·911|
    | June 1861 to March 1862         |           |           |        |
    | May 1862 to March 1863          | 133996·522|   95·786  |3361·511|
    | October 1863 to June 1864       | 157013·854|  111·964  |3197·416|
    | October 1864 to December 1864   | 110907·892|   79·094  |1286·310|
    | January 1865 to August 1865     | 145228·571|  103·618  | 635·697|
    | November 1865 to May 1866       | 354387·061|  253·461  |1758·309|
    | April 1867 to June 1867         | 127485·816|   90·265  |        |
    | July 1868 to August 1868        |           |           |        |
    +---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+

[Footnote 87: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 88: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 89: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 90: Explained on page 115.]

To show the extra cost of coining, these figures have but to be
multiplied into the sums coined. Before, however, entering upon this
field, it will be well to explain that the rates per cent. of coined
money obtained, as exhibited in the last two tables, are inclusive of
the pyx pieces, so as to show, as far as possible, the best results.
The pieces taken for the Mint trial are excluded, because these do not
ultimately find their way into circulation; but that the vast money
loss may be seen, I have added, in a tabular form, a statement[91]
which will show the weight of coined money produced in each coinage
from 1856 to 1868. It may, at first sight, appear that if the work
be so badly conducted as to yield an average of 3·92 per cent. less
coined money from a hundred ounces of bars, the expense incurred is
increased to an equivalent amount; but such is not the case, for
all depends on the point at which the extravagant workmanship may
have taken place. If, for instance, the bad work be produced in the
rolling room, it simply induces the expenditure of so much wages in
the melting, because the men are paid for the bars produced; but if
the rejection shall have taken place after the money is coined, it
becomes a more serious matter, because, in such a case, the loss and
expense attendant on each operation subsequent to the melting have been
incurred. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to give a general rule,
but an instance will suffice. The coinage for 1857,[92] inclusive of
every _manufacturing_ expense, cost 6_s._ 5_d._ per thousand pieces;
while that of 1866 cost 13_s._ 2_d._ per thousand pieces. That the
exact amount of waste may be estimated for these two years, then, it is
only necessary to multiply the weight given previously (refer to page
114) for the coined money and pyx pieces, which, in the period from
November, 1856, to April, 1857, would be 456,111·568, added to 464·293,
and the sum of these, multiplied by £3·89375,—the decimal expression
for £3 17_s._ 10½_d._, when the total value of that coinage will be
obtained, and found to be £1,777,796·15. Since each thousand coins
cost 6_s._ 5_d._, the total sum was coined at an expense of £570 7_s._
6_d._; but, had the rate of expense been the same as for the coinage of
1866, the total cost would have been £1,170 7_s._ 7½_d._, or exactly
£600 0_s._ 1½_d._ more than it should have cost for actual working
expenses. So by the rule of proportion the actual expense for the
coinage of 1866 may be obtained, and this table is valuable as showing
the weight of each coinage, but will naturally be more serviceable to
those who seek practical information than to general readers, and for
the benefit of such it is added.

[Footnote 91: See page 114.]

[Footnote 92: See page 117.]

On examining this table (see page 114), it will be observed that
the coinages of December, 1858, to June, 1859, and against which is
placed, are bracketed, with a view to call attention to the fact that
the accounts of those two coinages became inexplicably mixed. Since
the present and the late Prime Minister have stated from their places
in Parliament that the Royal Mint is found wanting in administrative
ability, it may not be out of place to suggest that there is abundant
room for reform in the Office division of that Department, for it is
seldom that the accounts can be obtained for many months after the
work is finished, and this circumstance, as is apparent, is a serious
inconvenience to the operative department.

Following these considerations on the extravagance of manufacture, and
reflecting on what the processes should be, it appears that this is
a fitting point at which to study the cost of producing gold coins,
and, consequently, the rates of wages paid to the men for labour.
Therefore, it may be well to state that there were two systems of
payments to workpeople: one by which they were paid for _time_, that
is, by the hour, for cleaning the working departments, machinery, &c.,
and for the more important coining of bronze; while for the coining of
the precious metals they were paid by a scale of _piece-work_. These
systems produced nothing but dissatisfaction amongst the workpeople,
for at times they were receiving very good wages, and at others none
at all; and to meet such contingencies the men and boys who were on
the establishment received a kind of retaining fee, which was called
subsistence, and in bitter irony no more fit name can be given to
the miserable pittance which, under this form, was paid to them. It
commenced at 6_s._ a week, and, after twenty years, rose to 10_s._
a week; and if, as often happened, the Mint were idle for months
together, this was all the poor fellows had to subsist upon; and, to
reduce the value of this pittance to its smallest proportion, they were
not entitled to it unless they should each day present themselves,
and, by a fiction, ask for leave of absence for that day, the longest
period for which leave can be granted. After many attempts to compel
the men to comply with these terms, they were wisely permitted to
go home, and “wait further orders;” so that, by a kind of tacit
resistance, they were able to overcome a regulation which would make
it impossible to obtain employment elsewhere, because most other work
commences before eight, at which hour they were required to present
themselves. If, instead of this unsatisfactory state, the men were paid
fixed wages, and, in addition, so much for each 100 lbs. of coined
money produced, they would be satisfied, while the coined money would
be produced at a cheaper rate, for each man would be concerned to see
that every exertion was made for the final event; whereas, under the
then arrangement, with a specific amount of gold to be coined, it is
manifest that, with management such as is now under discussion, the sum
for wages might be doubled, because the men were paid at the following

Rates for Piece-work.

    LEGEND:
        (A) = Rolling Fillets.
        (B) = Adjusting and Cutting.
        (C) = Marking and Annealing.
        (D) = Coining in Press Room.
        (E) = Melting. (Ends are not deducted.)
    +----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
    |     For each 100 lbs.|       |       |       |       |      |
    |       Troy of Good   |  (A)  |  (B)  |  (C)  | (D)   | (E)  |
    |       Work produced. |       |       |       |       |      |
    +----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
    |                      |_s. d._|_s. d._|_s. d._|_s. d._| _d._ |
    |Gold   Sovereigns     | 3  0  | 5  0  | 3  0  | 2  6  |  5   |
    |       Half Sovereigns| 5  0  |10  0  | 6  0  | 5  0  |  5   |
    +----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
    |       Florins        | 1  6  | 2  6  | 2  0  | 1  8  |  5   |
    |         and upwards  |       |       |       |       |      |
    |       Shillings      | 2  0  | 3  6  | 3  6  | 3  0  |  5   |
    |Silver Sixpences      | 4  0  | 7  0  | 7  0  | 6  0  |  5   |
    |       Fourpences     | 5  0  | 8  0  |14  0  |12  0  |  5   |
    |       Threepences    | 6  0  |10  0  |14  0  |12  0  |  5   |
    +----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+

And, to view this matter in its practical light, we can demonstrate its
unadvisedness. Thus, in the coinage of 1857,[93] there were 2,110,962
ounces of gold bars wrought, which produced 2,016,337·80 ounces of
fillets (equal to 95·51 per cent.). These fillets produced 1,163,502·34
ounces of good blanks, from which 1,154,590·87 ounces of coined
sovereigns were obtained. Now, if these various weights be reduced to
wages—the men were paid for the produce of each operation—by the table
above given, they will yield as follows:—

[Footnote 93: See page 92.]

                                     £ _s. d._
    For melting                     36 12  9½
     ”  rolling                    252  8  0½
     ”  cutting and adjusting      260 12  5¾
     ”  annealing and blanching    145  8  9
     ”  coining in press room      120  5  4¾
                                  --------------
                                  £815  7  5½

So that for producing 1,154,590·87 ounces, or £4,495,748, of coined
money, the men were paid £815 7_s._ 5½_d._, which sum was equally
divided amongst the whole body, except that paid to the melters, for
they are still paid, by a curious fiction, as packers and tellers.
This, then, is the sum paid for wages when the coin produced averaged
54·79 per cent. on the bars; but let us see its amount compared with
another statement put forward by the late Master of the Mint when the
sovereigns produced averaged—the coinages concerned terminated in
December, 1864,[94] and May, 1866[95]—49·44 and 38·11[96] per cent. on
the bars respectively—in other words, let us compare this rate of pay
with that given in the Report of the Commissioners on the International
Coinage, from which book the figures for 1864 in the following Table
are taken.

[Footnote 94: See page 111.]

[Footnote 95: See page 111.]

[Footnote 96: By reference to the table at page 84, it will be seen
that the amount of coin obtained in 1866 was below the worst produced
at any other period since 1851.]

    STATEMENT SHOWING THE COST OF PRODUCING
    1,000 COINED SOVEREIGNS AND HALF SOVEREIGNS.

    +-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+
    |       |               |           |          |               |
    |       |               |   Total   | Average  |   Total Sum   |
    | Date  |  Denomination |  Number   |Number of |    paid to    |
    |  of   |    of Coin.   | of Coins  |Pieces per|   Workmen as  |
    |Coining|               |  in the   |  Week.   |     Wages.    |
    |       |               | Coinage.  |          |               |
    +-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+
    |       |               |           |          |   £ _s.  d._  |
    | 1857  |Sovereigns     | 4,495,748 |  497,625 |  778 14  8    |
    | 1858  |    ”          |    47,549 |          |    8  4  2½   |
    | 1858  |Half Sovereigns|   544,312 |  272,156 |   91 10  3    |
    | 1864  |Sovereigns     | 5,663,656 |  514,878 |2,011 11  7½   |
    +-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+
    +-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
    |       |            |  Cost of   |            |            |
    |       |  Cost of   |1000 pieces |  Cost in   | Total Cost |
    | Date  |   1,000    |in Salaries |  Loss of   |     of     |
    |  of   | Pieces in  |    and     |  Metal by  | producing  |
    |Coining|   Wages.   |contingent  |  Coining.  | 1000 Gold  |
    |       |            | expenses.  |            |   Coins.   |
    +-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
    |       |£  _s. d._  |£ _s.  d._  |£ _s.  d._  |£ _s.  d._  |
    | 1857  | 0  3  5½   | 0  8  1¼   | 0  2  9½   | 0 14  4¼   |
    | 1858  | 0  3  5¼   | 0 17  5½   | 0  4  1¼   | 1  5  2    |
    | 1858  | 0  3  4½   | 0 18  3¾   | 0  4  1¼   | 1  5  9½   |
    | 1864  | 0  7  2    | 0 12  9¼   | 0  6  0    | 1  5 11¼   |
    +-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
    +-------+------------+-------------+
    |       |            |             |
    |       |            | Total Cost  |
    | Date  |Cost of 1000|of producing |
    |  of   | pieces for |  one Gold   |
    |Coining|  melting.  |   Coin.     |
    |       |            |             |
    +-------+------------+-------------+
    |       |£  _s. d._  |£  _s.  d._  |
    | 1857  | 0  0 1·955 | 0  0  0·174 |
    | 1858  |            | 0  0  0·302 |
    | 1858  |            | 0  0  0·309 |
    | 1864  |            | 0  0  0·311 |
    +-------+------------+-------------+

By which it is demonstrably shown that whereas at that period 1,000
coins cost for wages 7_s._ 2_d._, at the periods above given, and shown
as 1857-8, the cost was 3_s._ 5½_d._ for the same number of coins, thus
showing a clear saving for wages, by the proper system of management,
of 3_s._ 8½_d._ on each 1,000 sovereigns coined, or on that total
quantity no less than £1,050 2_s._ 8½_d._ While such extravagance is
not only tolerated but approved, miserable savings are effected at the
cost of the helpless. But to treat of the wrongs to which men in this
Department are submitted would take volumes which none would read.

Since, however, the appearance of the last edition of this book, the
Mint Authorities have adopted in part the plan of wages payment I
therein suggested, and which I had submitted to the late Master of
the Mint in my Report dated 29th January, 1859. Indeed, I believe the
system now in force was recommended to the Treasury, in the first
instance, by Mr. Thomas Graham. I am sorry they did not give full
effect to my propositions, still they have improved the positions of
the workmen by the alterations made, but for the reasons I shall state
I cannot concur in what they have done. I leave my original proposition
to speak for itself, as I reproduce it a few pages hence, and here
content myself with exhibiting the system of payment to workmen now in
force in the Royal Mint. _Vide_ “Mint Reports,” No. 7, 1870.

“We propose that for the future all piece-work in gold and silver
coining shall be paid for at the reduced rate of 1_s._ 9_d._ per 1,000
good pieces, and all bronze coining at the rate of £2 10_s._ per
ton for pence, £3 10_s._ per ton for halfpence, and £7 per ton for
farthings.

“In addition to their wages for piece-work, we propose that the men
should be entitled to a uniform payment of £1, and the boys to a
payment of 10_s._, and after three years’ service, to 15_s._ per week.
The only exception to these arrangements would be the payments made
to certain overmen, which would be in one case £1 10_s._, and in five
other cases £1 5_s._ per week. These payments would continue to be made
when the Mint is at work as well as when it is unemployed, and to the
boys as well as to the men. All the men and boys would thus receive
sufficient weekly wages to maintain them, both during a cessation of
work and while the Mint is in full operation.

“By this arrangement an average saving of £100 a year only will be
effected.”

To the principle involved in this system I take exception; for the
manufacturers, who gave the idea for it, never coined the precious
metals, so that the whole operation of the system could not have been
present to their minds when they recommended it. By this plan the men
are paid for simple numbers, and not as they should be, in proportion
to the labour and anxiety incurred.

That this fault may stand out clearly, I submit in the following table
a fair week’s work on each coin, and we will assume that the one kind
of coin follows the other, as indeed would really be the case in actual
operation, only at greater intervals.

    +-------------------------------+
    |            GOLD.              |
    +---------------+---------------+
    |   Sovereigns. |      Half     |
    |               |   Sovereigns. |
    +---------------+---------------+
    | 600 journeys  | 300 journeys  |
    | per week.     | per week,     |
    | = 420,600     | = 420,600     |
    | pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 |
    | per 1,000.    | per 1,000,    |
    |               |               |
    | Wages £36·80  | £36·80        |
    +---------------+---------------+
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                           SILVER.                             |
    +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    |     Florins.  |   Shillings.  |   Sixpences.  | Threepences.  |
    |               |               |               |               |
    +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    | 240 journeys  | 180 journeys  | 108 journeys  | 60 journeys   |
    | per week,     | per week,     | per week,     | per week,     |
    | = 475,200     | =712,800      | = 855,360     | = 950,400     |
    | pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 |
    | per 1,000,    | per 1,000,    | per 1,000.    | per 1,000.    |
    |               |               |               |               |
    | £41·55        | £62·37        | £74·84        | £33·16        |
    +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    |                        BRONZE.                     |
    +------------------+------------------+--------------+
    |    Pennies.      |  Half pennies.   | Farthings.   |
    |                  |                  |              |
    +------------------+------------------+--------------+
    | 30 cwt. per      | 25 cwt. per      | 12 cwt. per  |
    | diem, or say     | diem, or say     | diem, or say |
    | 9 tons a week    | 7·50 tons a week,| 3·60 tons a  |
    | at £2 10_s._     | at £3 10_s._     | week, at £7  |
    | per ton.         | per ton.         | per ton.     |
    |                  |                  |              |
    | £22·50           | £26·25           | £25·20       |
    +------------------+------------------+--------------+

It is reasonable to suppose that men are more exposed to temptation
when gold is within their reach (and that this is Mr. Fremantle’s view
may be gathered from one of his reasons for urging a removal of the
Mint, viz., to avoid “opportunities for peculation”) than when they are
operating upon silver or bronze; yet we find by the above demonstration
that sovereigns and half-sovereigns yield almost _the worst wages_ to
the men, for the sums specified are divided amongst the whole body of
them, who probably number now, as when I left the Mint, 27 men and
11 boys. The contrast is stronger if the payment for _florins_ be
compared with that for THREEPENCES, which, with a tithe of the labour,
yield just _double_ the remuneration. The Reporters give a reason
why they altered the system, which after I have pointed out the above
facts, will seem to be curious. They state that the _inequalities of
wages_ induce “the improvident to contract liabilities, and, on the
other hand, the more skilful workmen are induced to accept employment
elsewhere, and the Mint loses their services.” In my own experience,
the men prefer regular wages of a smaller amount to an irregular income
of greater value, because they can then regulate their household
expenses and save money by fixed weekly sums, but that this reason
never entered the heads of the Reporters is manifest from their own
admission. They urge “_this arrangement_ because _an average saving
of £100 a year will be effected_,” which saving is to come out of the
pockets of men already underpaid. I would say to the Reporters, “Muzzle
not the ox that treadeth out the corn.”

The total cost, then, of producing a sovereign in 1857 under proper
management was 0·174_d._, while under Mr. Graham’s system it would
appear to have been 0·311_d._ in 1864. If, however, the facts be
examined, and stripped of the sensational effect of the cost of one
coin, it will be found that the difference is far from infinitesimal,
for whereas the total absolute cost per 1,000, inclusive of everything,
was 14_s._ 4¼_d._ in 1857, it had reached £1 5_s._ 11¼_d._ in the
years 1864-66 (see page 117). The increased expense thus incurred
amounts to 11_s._ 7_d._ on each 1,000 coins, or, on the whole amount
of that coinage, to £3,280 4_s._ This, then, is the state of cost at a
selected period, when a large amount was coined weekly. But what would
have been the cost had it been taken on the total coinage? For then
we should have found an increase in the amount per 1,000 pieces for
salaries and contingent expenses, whereas the figures for 1857 include
the whole coinage—beginning, middle, and ending; so that the average
produce of coins per week, although appearing to be smaller than that
of 1864, is really far greater, for whereas the largest number reached
in any one week in 1864 was 585,899[97] pieces, in 1857 the largest
number in any one week was 915,506[98] pieces, or larger by 329,607
pieces, the average per week being 17,253 pieces less, because the
coinages of 1864-1866 referred to, do not contain the beginning and
“tailing-off” of the coinage; in simple fact, they are figures written
_for effect, not for information_. That the complete coinage costs
more for salaries and contingent expenses is self-evident, because
those expenses remain the same if no coins be struck, but that this
is a fact is demonstrated by the little coinages of 1858 in the same
table,[99] where it will be seen that, although the payments for wages
nearly approach the cost of 1857, the cost for salaries and contingent
expenses is greater than it was in 1864. Another point is here also
proved to demonstration—that whereas the loss by coining is clearly
proved to be unnecessary, the late Master of the Mint states it at
6_s._ per 1,000, or £300 per million coined. That this should have
been so stated is of ill omen,[100] for when the belief of Mr. Brande
and his colleagues led them to the conclusion that loss was necessary
at a mean rate of £373 per million, they exceeded £500; and, by rule
of proportion, we may expect the Mint to make, now that the belief of
the late Master has found expression, a loss of £452.[101] Be this as
it may, the difference between 6_s._ and 2_s._ 9½_d._ is sufficient to
make men think, for even this trifle of 3_s._ 2½_d._ on 1,000 coins
amounts to £908 2_s._ 6½_d._ on that single coinage. That the loss
on the coinages of 1858 should be so great is explained by the fact
that in a small coinage the first loss by gilding the machinery is as
great as in a large one; but in the case of a great coinage this is so
distributed over the mass as not to appear. Had it been determined,
however, to exhibit the actual facts by the system of selection
followed by others, not only would this loss of metal have disappeared,
but a gain would have been shown, for on those particular coins there
was an actual gain of 1·39 ounces, which is at the rate of £9 18_s._
10½2_d._ per million coined, or 2·386_d._ per 1,000 pieces coined, so
reducing the cost of these actual coins to £1 0_s._ 10½_d._ and £1
1_s._ 6_d._ per 1,000 respectively; but as these matters are dwelt upon
for information alone, it is preferred to place the fair proportion of
the loss on this coinage on this portion of it. It should be observed
that the contingent expenses for 1857 do not include £1,100 voted for
the new files,[102] because that sum was never appropriated to that
purpose; but that they do include the subsistence paid to the men, and,
indeed, every possible sum other than weekly wages paid to the men by
the piece-work scale above quoted. I have not questioned, nor have I
investigated, the figures used by the late Master of the Mint, for as
he wrote those papers, and invited the Signatories to give their names
after the copies were fairly made, it is but just to suppose that that
gentleman satisfied himself of their accuracy.

[Footnote 97: See Report by Commissioners on International Coinage, p.
93.]

[Footnote 98: See the Mint Books.]

[Footnote 99: See page 117.]

[Footnote 100: See page 125.]

[Footnote 101: See page 129.]

[Footnote 102: See pages 44, 179.]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed to reduce the value of
the gold coinage by removing one grain of gold from the sovereign, a
reduction of 0·81119 per cent, of its value. This matter has been so
fully discussed, and its error so completely demonstrated, that little
need be here said; but there is one consideration which should not be
omitted. The new standard of value, for such it will be, will be worth
only its value in gold immediately after it has quitted our shores. To
travellers, therefore, it is a tax of about one per cent., for each of
Mr. Lowe’s pounds will fetch but 19_s._ 10_d._, and, whether the coins
be exchanged here or abroad, the reduction must be borne; whereas, if
it were determined to charge the _importer_ for the cost of coining,
and for that alone, no tax could fall on individuals—a system which
must be unjust, and the coin would, by this burden, be restricted in
its power of sale as bullion, so small a sum as one-eighth of one per
cent. having frequently determined the sending of coin rather than
of bullion, because, when the exchanges are nearly equal, merchants
thus save the cost of assaying, which, inclusive of loss of interest,
&c., amounts to 2_s._ 6_d._ per £100. To fix, then, the sum proper
to charge for the coining of gold is practically a simple matter, if
it be desired, as should be the case, to protect our coinage from
conversion into bullion, to the profit of special merchants, but to the
loss of the nation. In the following proposition the exact cost can be
determined, and that should be the maximum limit of a Mint charge or
_mintage_, for if that charge be so enlarged as to insure a profit, the
fears of Mr. J. G. Hubbard as to the illicit coiners relieving the Mint
may be expected to be realised.

Between April, 1855, and December, 1865, £59,581,957 were coined, or
an average of £5,958,195 in each year. If, however, six millions be
accepted as the average yearly coinage of gold, it will give data for
the following calculations.

That the cost of coining may be always the same, let there be
thirty-six efficient workmen and twelve boys, and let these be paid
for wages in the following manner:—To each man £1 a week, whether at
work or not, and to boys a sum beginning at 14_s._ per week, to be
increased 1_s._ per week for each additional year of service, until the
age of twenty be reached, when they should receive the same sum of £1
as is paid to the men, but the “rating as men” should be stopped till
a vacancy occurs, that the number of men, inclusive of melters, shall
not exceed thirty-six, as then no injustice will be done the men, and
the boys are sufficiently provided for to enable them to wait. When,
however, work is in progress I would pay for piece-work as follows; for—

                             £
    Sovereigns             0·806 per 100 lbs. troy of coined money.
    Half Sovereigns        1·571      ”               ”
    Florins                0·555      ”               ”
    Shillings              0·800      ”               ”
    Sixpences              1·348      ”               ”
    Threepences            2·330      ”               ”
    Bronze pence           7·500 per ton of coined money.
      ”    halfpence      10·000      ”            ”
      ”    farthings      15·000      ”            ”

This sum should be divided by a simple system equally amongst the
workpeople, so that men should take one whole share, boys who have
served more than three years and a half two-thirds of a share, and boys
of less service than three years and a half one-third of a share. When
the fair share of piece-work exceeds the permanent amount of fixed
wages, that sum should be deducted from the total sum allotted to each,
so that the permanent wages would become a fixed charge secured on the
piece-work to be performed. This being performed intelligently, each
workman would participate in the benefit, therefore each would do his
best; whereas no increase can take place in the cost of production, for
any carelessness in the various operations simply causing so much waste
labour, would bring no remuneration, and the wages would thus bear
proportion to the anxiety incurred and be equalized.

To pursue, then, this proposition further, it will be convenient to
assume that 420,600 sovereigns are coined per week, this being a fair
average amount to take if the complete coinage be conceived to be
6,000,000 of finished coin. In such a case fourteen weeks would be
required to effect the operation, and its total cost will stand thus:—

                                               £
    For assays by out-door assayers          998·4
     ”  wages to workmen                   1,035·0
     ”  salaries and contingent expenses   2,843·0
     ”  loss of metal by coining           1,200·0
                                          --------
                                          £6,076·4

In estimating salaries and contingent expenses the estimates of 1857
have been taken, because the pressure for bronze has passed away,
and the establishment has, it is supposed, gone back to its then
dimensions. At that period it was usual to estimate the cost of coining
gold, inclusive of assaying, at the rate of one-sixth per cent. In
the above calculations the cost of assaying is included, as well as
the salaries and contingent expenses, from which, however, has been
deducted the fixed wages paid to the workpeople for fourteen weeks,
because they are supposed to have been earned as piece-work.

Allowance at the extravagant rate of £200 per million coined is also
made for loss of metal by coining, so that under this proposition the
total cost of producing six millions of coined gold becomes £6,076·40.
This must be the absolute sum, for the cost of dies, police, &c.,
is included in the amount for salaries and contingent expenses; it
therefore follows that each £100 would cost for manufacture £0.101273,
or about 2_s._ 0¼_d._ Here, then, are exhibited the grounds on which
the calculations are based, and unless there are errors on the face of
the figures it is demonstrated that the total cost of coining, even
with an extravagant estimate, may be reduced to about one-tenth of one
per cent. Why, then, should a profit of nine-tenths of one per cent.
be desired or granted? If an ultimate decision should be formed to
charge £1 for each thousand sovereigns coined, a stimulus will be given
to the Mint authorities to investigate the cause of their losses, the
means whereby these may be stopped, and to how great an extent useless
officers may be parted with, thus to make a minute but legitimate
saving out of the allowance, for there is no substantial reason why we
should coin free of charge; nor, on the other hand, is it right that
the cost of that operation should fall on the tax-payer, while a just
rate for mintage would, unless under very exceptional circumstances,
protect the coinage from illegitimate conversion into bullion, for it
must be remembered that there is already in reality a tax of 1½_d._ per
ounce for the conversion of bullion into coin, paid by the _importer_
to the Bank of England, and the charge for mintage will be in addition
to that tax.

A very strong reason against an exorbitant charge may be found in
the fact that the French Mint is content to fix its rate at about 6
francs 70 centimes for each kilogramme of their standard gold, which
is coined into pieces of the value of 3,100 francs, or about 0·216129
per cent., say 4_s._ 3¾_d._ for each £100 coined, and this under a
system of contract which gives a profit to the contractors, so that it
becomes clear, coining is practically done AT A FIXED RATE IN FRANCE,
that rate being above the actual cost of our coinage in 1857, but below
the charge proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by six-tenths
of one per cent., irrespective of the deduction of 1½_d._ per ounce
made at the Bank when gold is bought.[103] This being the case, it is
reasonable to suppose that all the gold for coining will go to France;
whereas, if it be desired to convert the coin of France into _our
proposed debased coinage_, each £1,000 so converted will produce but
£990·275, because the 1½_d._ per ounce is equal to 0·16051 per cent.,
and to this tax is added 0·81119 per cent. by the deduction of the
one grain proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it must be
understood that the coined money of France will still be treated as
bullion. Perhaps a still plainer view of the case may be obtained, if
it be assumed that a man has a million pounds’ worth of gold, which,
for cheapness’ sake, he gets coined in France, where he will pay
£2,161·29 for coining it. Circumstances, however, make it desirable
that this million in French gold coins should be converted into coin
of the British standard as coined at the Royal Mint, where the owner
will find that, for the conversion of his bullion, he has to submit to
a deduction equal in value to £9,725, which, added to the sum charged
in France for the first coining, makes a total of £11,886·29. How many
persons will be willing to sacrifice such a sum for the convenience
of others? The result must be that, unless under the most exceptional
circumstances, no gold except for currency can be coined in England,
it will inevitably be sent to France, because coined gold will there
always be 0·81119 per cent. more valuable than in England.

[Footnote 103: Sec pages 3, 127.]

In discussions recently earned on in the newspapers, the liability
of gold coin to be sifted of its pieces which are heavier than the
theoretical standard has been a good deal dwelt upon; but there is one
view which, perhaps, has not occurred to those who are unacquainted
with the manufacturing details. It is true, then, that the standard
weight of a sovereign deduced from its proportional weight to 20 lbs.
troy is 123·274478 grains, and that this piece may vary so far in
weight as to be either too light or too heavy by no less than 0·2000
grain, and yet be a perfectly legal tender. With careful manufacture
the coins issued should be so apportioned that there shall be half
the number on the light and the other half on the heavy side of the
standard weight.[104] By referring to the papers furnished for the
guidance of the jury at the trial of the pyx it will be found that the
gold coins reported on at the last two trials were on the light side of
the theoretical weight, for those submitted to trial in 1861 were by
number 24,655,335 pieces, and weighed only an equivalent to 24,654,849
sovereigns, consequently the Bank of England received exactly £486
more in coined moneys than their bullion was worth; therefore this
was a profit to that Institution. And on the occasion of the trial
which took place in 1866 there were by number 34,927,188 pieces, which
weighed only an equivalent to 34,927,008 sovereigns, so that the Bank
gained exactly £180. These facts demonstrate the fairness with which
the Mint coins and issues its coined moneys, not in accordance with
the letter, but with the spirit of the law which governs its actions;
yet the evidence thus given is to the effect that the bulk of the
coins are on the light side. The current weight of the sovereign, as
authorised by Act of Parliament 33 Vict., cap. 10, and published in
the _London Gazette_, 12th August, 1870, is 122·50 grains, and below
this weight the Bank of England will not receive it in payment of
twenty shillings; but the half-sovereign, being a coin of convenience,
is allowed to circulate till its weight, has fallen to 61·125 grains,
below which it is not received at the Bank in liquidation of a debt
of ten shillings. Thus, then, while a sovereign may be legally coined
so that its weight may be either 123·474478 grains or 123·074478
grains, it is still permitted to circulate, and is a legal tender at
the current weight of 122·50 grains, or a difference of 0·574478 grain
below the minimum weight permitted by the New Coinage Act for its issue
from the Mint. If, as will be found to be the case on an average of
years, the rejected coins by weight amount to 16 per cent. when the
remedy is 0·20 grain, and to 9 per cent. when the remedy is 0·25 grain,
it is evident that the chance of obtaining profit by picking coins
is not greater than 3·5 per cent., because the difference between a
fifth and a quarter of a grain makes an increase of 7 per cent., and
of these rejected pieces rather less than half are on the heavy side,
because, as has been shown, the whole deliveries to the Bank of England
are on an average light pieces; therefore it will be perfectly safe
to consider that each hundred sovereigns contain at the extreme three
coins which may be two-tenths of a grain heavier than the standard
weight of 123·274478 grains; but it is by no means certain that any
hundred pieces would contain one single coin heavy by this amount
even if the remedy were made to be 0·25 grain, because the automaton
balances of Mr. Cotton are so accurate as never to permit the issue of
pieces beyond the limits assigned, and any piece which at its passage
through the machine equalled the maximum weight would be, and is,
inevitably reduced—infinitesimally, if you will—in weight, by abrasion
against other pieces in the act of falling, as well as when put into
its bag previously to going to the Bank of England. When the remedy was
0·30 grain the case was different, but it may now be assumed that it is
impossible for any one to make profit by selecting heavy pieces,—this
irrespective of the fact that the bankers find it worth their while
to select heavy pieces for transmission to the Bank of England,
because they then obtain the coins which are of current weight, yet
not intrinsically worth twenty shillings;—whereas the recent public
discussion makes it appear that it is worth the risk to certain unknown
individuals in Brussels to buy our newly-coined sovereigns, pick from
them such as exceed 123·274 grains, and melt them into ingots for sale
as bullion, and return to us the light pieces. The only modes by which
it pays such persons to buy new sovereigns for the purpose of such
gain is to shake them together in canvas bags, or to submit them to
the electrotype process—as is often done by chemical students—and by
these means obtain from each a specific amount of gold, sending the
sweated coins into circulation, having reduced each of them to the
lowest current weight by a very short rough usage. It is different when
coins, instead of being individually weighed, are simply _pounded_,
that is, weighed _en masse_, just to determine that a certain number
are in a given weight: in such circumstances many coins most unequable
may be issued, as was the case when silver coins were thus treated in
the Royal Mint in August, 1864, against all sound principles. At that
period the then Master, under false notions of economy,[105] determined
not to weigh individual pieces of silver money, because silver coins
were mere tokens, but when coins bearing the device of FLORINS, and
ranging in intrinsic value from 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._ 9_d._ irrespective
of extrinsic worth, were returned to the Mint, this economy was soon
abandoned.

[Footnote 104: See pages 39, 73.]

[Footnote 105: See page 71.]

I have dwelt at considerable length upon the losses incurred by
the coining of gold; such losses I now find are defended by high
authorities, but I hope some effort may be produced by my words, yet
not mine only, for I will quote those used by Mr. Graham in his letter
to the Treasury[106]:—

[Footnote 106: See page 178.]

    “This gives in a million coined a net loss of £257 7_s._ 0¾_d._;
     ... but after making allowance for the circumstances just stated,
     the loss of gold in melting remains higher, in my opinion, than it
     ought to be; and it will, I trust, be found to admit of some
     further reduction in future years.

    “A correct estimate of the whole waste in coining is obtained by
     combining the returns of the two departments:—

                                     £  _s. d._
    Loss of melting department      257  7  0¾ per million.
    Surplus of coining department    50 13  0        ”
                                    -----------
                 Difference         206 14  0¾       ”

    It thus appears that in 1858-59 the net loss in minting £1,000,000
    of gold was £206 14_s._ 0¾_d._’

He then proceeds to show that “the loss on the gold coinage for the
(_then_) last three years was £172 8_s._ 11½_d._,” yet Mr. Fremantle’s
return to the House of Lords No. 30, 1870, shows a loss of £464 as the
average in the last three years, and he in “European Mints,” uses these
significant words: “The waste shown to have existed of late years in
the English Mint has not been excessive.”

I reproduce these words because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
accepted contracts for coinages for foreign countries, and I propose to
study the matter in relation to his probable profit.

With such losses accruing as are here exhibited, it appears to be a
step worthy only the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to advertise
for coinage contracts for foreign countries. At what price will they
be granted to him? It is perfectly clear that, to make a profit, he
must charge more than it will cost, so it will be well to examine his
chance of success. We may assume that it will cost him 2_s._ 6_d._ to
coin £100 in sovereigns as the expenses of salaries, wages, and loss;
in addition to these he will find it necessary to pack his coined money
for exportation, whither he must pay carriage, insurance, &c. Should he
feel that he need not charge for wear and tear of machinery, he must
still remember that it will require renewal at intervals, and every
expense must be included in a total sum of 4_s._ 3¾_d._, or the foreign
contractors (whom he was sanguine enough to suppose would give him
information) will be sure to beat him in the tender for the contract.
As to silver, it is already certain that his loss by coining would
alone make any profit hopeless even to a Chancellor of the Exchequer
who knows how to get five quarters’ taxes in one year. Lord Kinnaird
has shown that the Mint loses by manufacturing silver coin, by sheer
loss of metal, at the rate of 3_s._ 9¾_d._ for each £100 coined (see
page 146), and in addition to this tax he has to pay 1_s._ 9_d._ for
each 1,000 coins manufactured for labour, besides the contingent
expenses, including packing, insurance, &c. All expenses must come
within 15_s._ for each £100, because this is the sum at which the
foreign contractors gladly accept coinages. While saying thus much, it
has been necessary to reserve facts which would be indispensable to a
contractor, because such information should be rendered to a contractor
only on terms such as another would be willing to offer for it, and to
publish it here would be hardly fair to those whose business it is to
live by coining.

The Royal Mint, suffering thus from faults which its officials profess
themselves unable to remedy, it seems an eccentric proceeding that
while the Government Institution bears good-naturedly all the loss, the
Bank of England should obtain all the profit, “as a set-off against
the stock of bullion it is compelled to keep.” It is to be remarked
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was “necessary to
expedite the coining of gold, because it bears interest while under
coinage,” thus exhibiting an absence of knowledge, for the Mint pays no
interest. It is no concern of the Bank whether its bullion be reserved
as ingots or coin, because it is compelled by Act of Parliament to keep
a specified amount to meet the excess issue of its notes, and this
circumstance alone enables the Bank of England to coin gold without
loss of interest—gold at the Mint is still considered as reserved by
the Bank. So far, indeed, from the Bank losing money by importing gold
for coming, it makes a clear profit, as is shown by the following
figures—this even under its new system of assay—

             BANK OF ENGLAND PROFIT.

    By the charge of 1½_d._ on each ounce of gold   £1605·100
    By the system of absorbing assay fractions        166·666
    By the turn of the scale on purchase               71·339
                                                    ---------
        On each million coined                      £1843·105

Nor is this all; for the Bank exacts from the Mint the last ounce
or fraction of an ounce of all it sends, and besides receives gold
invariably coined on the light side of the standard, to the average
extent of £11·50, and makes an additional profit by the turn of the
scale, which gives them from the Mint £75 on each million, so that
their total gain comes to be £1,929 12_s._ on each million sent to the
Mint for coining, that Department good-naturedly finding alloy into the
bargain. That I do not exceed the facts of the case would seem to be
conclusively proved by Messrs C. W. Fremantle and C. Rivers Wilson, for
those gentlemen in their Reports state the amount at £3,458, and affirm
(see Reports on the Mint, page 4) that on £5,000,000 the Mint would
make a profit of £8,000. How they reconcile their figures I do not
know, for by their own showing it should be £17,290. They had better
accept my figures, which would produce a profit of £9,648 on the same
amount.

I feel that I have produced sufficient evidence to oblige me to
withdraw the opinion I have hitherto held, and which I thus expressed—

    “If, as I can clearly show, the Mint can still be
    advantageously retained under Government control, it would
    appear to be a pity to place the coinage in the hands of
    contractors, for it is evident that they must be paid such
    a price as will yield them a profit, and this sum had
    better be saved to the nation.”

On the contrary, I now think it is the duty of the Government TO AT
ONCE COIN BY CONTRACT, as the cost of such process will be definite,
whereas it is now illimitable. Instead of the tax-payers paying for New
Mint buildings, _which are not required_, contractors would gladly buy
the present Mint just as it stands, and in three years amass colossal
fortunes. If Mr. Lowe were to hand over the coinage of gold, silver,
and bronze—by which the Government now loses so large a sum—for one
year, with proper security, to an unofficial person, who should pay all
the costs and reap all the profit, I am sure the annual vote for the
expenses of the Mint and coinage may be remitted and the work will be
better performed. At a period when the Government has seen fit to send
Commissioners to European Mints to learn the mystery of coining, it
seems a perversion of reason to adopt the opinions of those learners,
and upon their recommendations build new Mint premises. I am aware that
it is thought by the sanguine that the old Mint site will sell for a
vast sum, which will pay for the new site; but is it in the experience
of the public that such transfers are made without loss? Indeed the
probability of vast expense is so great that it becomes a settled
question. The Commissioners—the chief of whom says,

    “... While I must not be understood to be in a position to
    offer positive recommendations on many points, and more
    especially as regards machinery, while the question as to
    the future site of the Mint is still pending, yet I trust
    that I have shown the importance of the information which
    we have acquired, and the possibility of applying it with
    advantage to many Mint arrangements in this country”—

recommend machinery and experiments with which two of their number are
admittedly unacquainted, and their Reports show throughout that they
are really writing upon subjects to which their minds have not yet
become accustomed, and which consequently they cannot fully appreciate.
Instead, therefore, of the Legislature building new premises on the
advice of such officers, it will surely be wise to give the contract
system a fair trial, say for a year, in accordance with the suggestion
of Lord Kinnaird. It is not the premises, it is not the machinery, it
is not the workpeople, but the utter want of experience in the chief
officers that gives rise to the state of muddle and dissatisfaction
amongst the officials, and causes loss of bullion, which does not go
into the chimney, and other expenses which will not bear the light of
day.

Mr. Fremantle recommends new premises, on the ground that such should
be built expressly for Mint purposes. The present Mint was so built,
and is now capable, with very limited expenses, of adaptation. It would
be cheaper to burn it down and rebuild the operative departments, than
to remove it to another site, where the same want of experience will
surely give rise to precisely similar evidences of mismanagement as now
exist. It is because the Government prefers to put the wrong man in the
wrong place—square men in round holes—that it is thought necessary to
transfer the Mint, really that those gentlemen may be nearer their own
comfortable homes and friends.

The East End of London is recognised as a disagreeable part to dwell
in; but the Mint is essentially a manufactory, and, as such, is not
fitted for the westerly parts of the metropolis, and those who object
to the neighbourhood should relinquish their offices. Would it be
tolerated, if proposed, to remove the Enfield factory to the Thames
Embankment, so that it “should be more immediately associated with
the Treasury offices?” In its present site the Mint has supplied the
coinage, and could issue multiples of its past productions; economy
being the order of the day, why incur unnecessary expense?

In the meantime, the old rule holds good—a bad workman complains of
his tools; and those who demonstrate their inability to conduct the
Mint in such manner as to derive the revenue which they admit should
accrue and which they profess themselves unable to secure, should
gracefully assent to place the matter in the hands of contractors till
the Government shall see fit to put the department in the charge of
some person who will practically develope the truth, instead of hunting
in the chambers of the chimneys for that which they must know full well
has left the Mint by another means.

The Commissioners seem to have gone out of their way to show their
want of knowledge on vital points in the manufacture of money. Thus
Mr. Fremantle recommends the substitution of graphite for iron pots
in silver melting, on the authority of Mr. Roberts, whose experience
is expressed in these words—“Graphite crucibles permit of the total
contents being poured into moulds, and this enables the accounts to be
adjusted daily.” Truly the accounts may be _adjusted_ daily; but most
commercial people object to _adjustment_, as that process commonly
leads to a minus account, and frequently an employment of the detective
police. To balance an account is a very different proceeding; but is
it true that graphite crucibles expedite the process? No, it is not
true, as witnessed by the table on page 102, where it will be seen that
the amount of gold which is _not “poured into the moulds”_ varies from
£1,132 down to £161, and has, at the last return, risen steadily to
£461, although the gold referred to was MELTED IN GRAPHITE CRUCIBLES.
At a later period I will show these facts in greater detail.[107]

So much interest does not attach to the coining of silver as to the
coining of gold; yet, as the amount of profit to be made by this
coinage depends on the length of time which silver coins can be kept
in circulation, it is necessary to consider whether the Royal Mint has
at any time made, or does now make, so much profit as it should, and
whether the coins when made are so manufactured as to be fit in the
highest degree to bear the wear and tear to which it is intended that
they shall be submitted. These questions, although they may appear
to be of little interest, are really important, because the Mint, if
properly managed, should, by its silver coinage, pay all its expenses,
and by its bronze coinage, if the latter be discreetly conducted,
render an actual profit to the Government. I propose presently[108] to
touch upon the bronze coinage, when inquiry will demonstrate that this
is conducted in such a manner as that a large per-centage of the fair
profit is sacrificed annually.

[Footnote 107: See page 136.]

[Footnote 108: See page 162.]

In those countries where silver is legally the standard of value the
coins contain the amount of silver which is equivalent to a fixed sum
of gold, and in all such cases, if silver should happen to rise in
price, bullion merchants buy large quantities of new silver _coins_
and export them, because these remain at a fixed price, although all
other silver has risen in value. In England this contingency is avoided
by giving to coined silver an _extrinsic value_; that is to say, by
raising silver whose natural market price varies[109] between 5_s._ per
ounce and 5_s._ 2_d._ per ounce to an artificial value of 5_s._ 6_d._
per ounce when it is coined into money. It is the practice of the Mint
to buy silver only when it is at its lowest market price, and then in
parcels of the value of £50,000. Upon an average of years it is found
that the profit thus accruing[110] should amount to about 8 per cent.
Even with perfect management the whole of this 8 per cent. would not
be secured, because all worn and light silver culled from circulation
is returned to the Mint by the Bank of England for recoinage into new
money, piece for piece, and many of the worn[111] pieces represent
only half their original extrinsic value. What we call a shilling is
intrinsically worth, when coined, about 10¾_d._, but when it is culled
from circulation it is often worth only 6_d._, therefore a loss of
4¾_d._ is incurred by re-coining it, quite independently of the labour
and loss of metal. It should, however, be stated that the Mint makes
a small profit by receiving the unreported fractions as well as the
excess of weight[112] invariably given when ingots are purchased. In
France the five-franc piece is coined so that it contains its intrinsic
value, the importer paying 75 centimes for each 100 francs in value.
Since this sum yields a profit to the contractor, we may be certain
that it covers every possible expense of production. If this cost be
proportioned to our money, it will appear to be at the rate of 15_s._
for each £100. Let us see, then, if the silver coinage of Great Britain
is produced at so cheap a rate as is that of France, and this shall be
determined by discussing the unnecessary losses which are permitted, in
a similar manner to, but less elaborately than, that adopted for the
gold coinage. The tables which will be exhibited are those given me by
the late Master of the Mint, under precisely the same circumstances as
described when speaking of the tables relating to gold. I will then
briefly treat of these losses as they were, as they are, and as they
should be. Those who are habituated to the working of gold feel, when
that work ceases, a kind of relief, which is perhaps natural if the
relative value be considered. The Mint, then, suddenly changes from
this metal to one of just about a fourteenth of its value, for to the
Mint people gold at £3 17_s._ 10½_d._ is as 14·16 is to 1 of silver,
which they view as of a value of 5_s._ 6_d._ per ounce; again, it
is more bulky and unmanageable. These causes are to be admitted to
their full share of importance, but should not induce us to accept
them in explanation of facts which are not otherwise reasonable, and
such seems to be the case with silver in the Royal Mint. Mr. Seyd, in
his admirable work on Bullion and Exchanges, at page 560 says, “We
should like to see a return moved for in Parliament of the wasteage
of gold at the British Mint from 1850 to the present year; it might
show whether there has not been at certain periods of the management
of the operative department much less loss than at others, and whether
there has not been occasionally a small gain even, as there certainly
ought to be with proper management.” Mr. Seyd has shown himself a
master of the subject he has undertaken, and perhaps the facts stated
in the earlier pages of this book may reply to some of his questions.
He then proceeds to say, “A return of the wasteage of silver might
also prove interesting, as well as an account of the imperfect work
returned to the melting-pot during each year.” When an author who has
so successfully studied a subject invites such information, one can
but feel that it is wise to give some details. I propose, however, to
give only such facts as will bring us up to the year 1861, because the
following years vary but little, and if I were to give another eight
years it would require more space than it is deemed wise to occupy.

[Footnote 109: See page 152.]

[Footnote 110: See pages 146, 152.]

[Footnote 111: See pages 65-67, 152, 155, 156.]

[Footnote 112: See pages 127, 137-138.]

In the following tabular statements will be found every particular
relating to silver arranged in a precisely similar manner to the facts
regarding gold, and it is hoped that they are given with sufficient
clearness to render unnecessary a lengthy explanation. I have given
other details at pages 136-142.

In explaining the table on page 132 it should be noted that the £1,315
9_s._ 4_d._, given as the value of the loss per million in 1852-53,
is not the true value, for, as in the case of gold, the account of
the loss was not kept. The loss of those years is, therefore, reduced
by sharing it with the coined money of the financial years, June,
1851, to March, 1853; if this sum be, as it should be, excluded, the
loss will be £1,695 17_s._ 6½_d._ The same allowance must be made for
the melting-house account in the table on page 134, when that sum
will become £1,375 12_s._ 4¾_d._ instead of £1,067 0_s._ 11¼_d._ It
is deemed fair to reduce this loss as far as possible; therefore the
whole sum coined between June, 1851, and March, 1853, has been made
to bear the one loss of these 1845·449 ounces. The same test being
applied to these tables as was applied to that relating to gold,[113]
it will be found that the average loss by coining silver between June,
1851, and March, 1857, was £1,013 11_s._ 2¼_d._, whereas in the next
period, between April, 1857, and March, 1860, it fell to £365 15_s._
10½_d._ This reduction then shows that the former loss, taken at its
lowest, gives evidence of _unnecessary_ wasteage to the extent of
£647 15_s._ 4_d._ on each million coined; but this sum is not that
shown by the Mint books, for, as above stated, it is below the truth.
Great, then, as were the amounts missed, we shall find them far greater
if the state of the melting-house be considered, and to do this is
necessary, because it was asserted that the loss was arrested in the
coining department by sending more oil and dirt to the melting-house.
Let us then see how this stands in regard to the truth, for while in
the period 1851 to 1857 the oil literally _dropped from the scissel
and drained through the trucks on to the floor_, in the latter period
the trucks were not soiled, and the use of oil in the rolling room was
rigidly prohibited, while in the drag room only so much as was required
to lubricate the fillets at the drag bench was permitted to be used,
and this was as far as possible removed by careful wiping with cotton
waste. It is also a fact that whereas there had been an HABITUAL LOSS
in the rolling and drag rooms when oil was used very largely, there
was now a GAIN IN BOTH ROOMS; in the former to the extent of one in
ten thousand ounces wrought, and in the latter to the extent of two in
ten thousand. These facts must be of importance while considering the
following statement (see page 134).

[Footnote 113: See page 88.]

STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF SILVER COINED AND OF THE LOSS ATTENDING
IT IN THE COINING DEPARTMENT.

    +--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+
    |   Date—Financial Year.   |  Weight of  | Value of Coinage. |
    |                          |   Coinage.  |                   |
    |                          |             |                   |
    +--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+
    |                          |   Ounces.   |     £   _s.   d._ |
    | June 1851 to March 1852  |  314689·050 |  86,539  9    9¼  |
    | April 1852 to March 1853 | 1088196·550 | 299,254  1    0¼  |
    |   ”   1853      ” 1854   | 2135071·750 | 587,144 14    7½  |
    |   ”   1854      ” 1855   |  501459·800 | 137,901  8   10¾  |
    |   ”   1855      ” 1856   | 1138355·000 | 313,047 12    6   |
    |   ”   1856      ” 1857   | 1792800·000 | 493,020  0    0   |
    |   ”   1857      ” 1858   | 1420560·000 | 390,654  0    0   |
    |   ”   1858      ” 1859   | 1449360·000 | 398,574  0    0   |
    |   ”   1859      ” 1860   | 2052720·000 | 564,498  0    0   |
    | March 1861 to June 1861  |  650160·000 | 178,794  0    0   |
    +--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+
    +--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+
    |   Date—Financial Year.   | Amount of Loss | Value of the Silver |
    |                          |   by Coining.  |        Lost.        |
    |                          |                |                     |
    +--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+
    |                          |    Ounces.     |    £   _s.   d._    |
    | June 1851 to March 1852  |                |                     |
    | April 1852 to March 1853 |   1845·449     |    507  9   11½     |
    |   ”   1853      ” 1854   |   2943·025     |    809  6    7½     |
    |   ”   1854      ” 1855   |    657·362     |    180 15    5¾     |
    |   ”   1855      ” 1856   |   1632·957     |    449  1    3¼     |
    |   ”   1856      ” 1857   |   2191·367     |    602 12    6¼     |
    |   ”   1857      ” 1858   |    910·264     |    250  6    5½     |
    |   ”   1858      ” 1859   |    834·679     |    232  0    2¾     |
    |   ”   1859      ” 1860   |    898·837     |    247  3    7¼     |
    | March 1861 to June 1861  |   1357·375     |    373  5    5½     |
    +--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+
    +--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
    |   Date—Financial Year.   |  Value of |Lost Silver  |   Sweep     |
    |                          |Sweep Sold.|per Million  | per Million |
    |                          |           |  Coined.    |   Coined.   |
    +--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
    |                          | £  _s. d._| £    _s. d._|  £  _s. d._ |
    | June 1851 to March 1852  | 31 12  8  |             |             |
    | April 1852 to March 1853 | 90  4 10½ |1,315  9  4  | 315 18  3   |
    |   ”   1853      ” 1854   |160 12  4  |1,378  8  4¾ | 273 11  1¼  |
    |   ”   1854      ” 1855   | 69 19  2¼ |1,310 17 11  | 507  6  3¼  |
    |   ”   1855      ” 1856   |104  5  7½ |1,434  9  9¼ | 333  3  3¾  |
    |   ”   1856      ” 1857   |149 10  9¼ |1,223  6  3¾ | 303  6  2¾  |
    |   ”   1857      ” 1858   | 98  1 10  |  640 15  6¾ | 251  1 11   |
    |   ”   1858      ” 1859   |125  8  4  |  582  2  1  | 314 13  3¼  |
    |   ”   1859      ” 1860   | 10 18  3  |  437 17  6¼ |  19  6  7¼  |
    | March 1861 to June 1861  | 24 14  4½ |2,087 14  6¼ | 138  5  0½  |
    +--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+

    To obtain the true amount of loss or waste, deduct the value of the
    sweep from the value of the silver lost.

RETURN FROM THE ROYAL MINT TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, DATED
17TH FEBRUARY, 1870. (THE LORD ROSSIE.)

COINING DEPARTMENT.

    A STATEMENT of the Weight and Value of the Silver
    Moneys coined in each Financial Year from 1851 to 1869
    inclusive, exhibiting the Weight and Value of the Loss or
    Waste sustained in each Year, as well as the Value of Sweep
    recovered, and the average Proportion of such Loss or Waste
    and Sweep recovered to each Million Pounds Sterling coined.

    +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
    |          Date.          | Weight of |Value of Coinage.|Amount of|
    |                         | Coinage.  |                 |  Waste. |
    +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
    |                         |  Ounces.  |      £   _s. d._|  Ounces.|
    |August 1851 to March 1852| 314689·050|   86,539  9  9  |         |
    |April 1852 to March 1853 |1088196·550|  299,254  1  0  | 1845·450|
    +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
    |  ”   1853      ”   1854 |2134891·750|  587,095  4  8  | 2943·025|
    |  ”   1854      ”   1855 | 501459·800|  137,901  8 11  |  657·362|
    |  ”   1855      ”   1856 |1138355·000|  313,047 12  6  | 1632·957|
    |  ”   1856      ”   1857 |1792800·000|  493,020  0  0  | 2191·367|
    |  ”   1857      ”   1858 |1420560·000|  390,654  0  0  |  910·264|
    |  ”   1858      ”   1859 |1449360·000|  398,574  0  0  |  843·679|
    |  ”   1859      ”   1860 |2052720·000|  564,498  0  0  |  898·837|
    +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
    |  ”   1860      ”   1861 | 625714·000|  172,071  7  0  |         |
    |  ”   1861      ”   1862 | 769680·000|  211,662  0  0  | 1032·502|
    |  ”   1862      ”   1863 | 532147·610|  146,340 11 10  |         |
    |  ”   1863      ”   1864 | 835920·000|  229,878  0  0  |  811·466|
    +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
    |  ”   1864      ”   1865 |1936800·000|  532,620  0  0  | 1100·169|
    |  ”   1865      ”   1866 |1880640·000|  517,176  0  0  |  906·407|
    |  ”   1866      ”   1867 |1739520·000|  478,368  0  0  |  891·389|
    |  ”   1867      ”   1868 | 961200·000|  264,330  0  0  |  473·724|
    |  ”   1868      ”   1869 | 597600·000|  164,340  0  0  |  280·764|
    +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |          Date.          |  Value of  |Value of Sweep|
    |                         |   Waste.   |  recovered.  |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |                         | £  _s.  d._|  £  _s. d._  |
    |August 1851 to March 1852|            |              |
    |April 1852 to March 1853 |507  10  0  | 121 17  6½   |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |  ”   1853      ”   1854 |809   6  8  | 160 12  4    |
    |  ”   1854      ”   1855 |180  15  6  |  69 19  2¼   |
    |  ”   1855      ”   1856 |449   1  3  | 104  5  7½   |
    |  ”   1856      ”   1857 |602  12  6  | 149 10  9¼   |
    |  ”   1857      ”   1858 |250   6  5  |  98  1 10    |
    |  ”   1858      ”   1859 |232   0  3  | 125  8  4    |
    |  ”   1859      ”   1860 |247   3  7  |  10 18  3    |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |  ”   1860      ”   1861 |            |              |
    |  ”   1861      ”   1862 |283 18  9   |  46  7  1½   |
    |  ”   1862      ”   1863 |            |              |
    |  ”   1863      ”   1864 |223  3  1   |     Nil.     |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |  ”   1864      ”   1865 |302 10 11   |  15  6  7    |
    |  ”   1865      ”   1866 |249  5  3   |  16  9  4    |
    |  ”   1866      ”   1867 |245  2  8   |     Nil.     |
    |  ”   1867      ”   1868 |130  5  6   | 121  3  3½   |
    |  ”   1868      ”   1869 | 77  4  2   |     Nil.     |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
    |          Date.          |Value of Waste per|Value of Sweep per|
    |                         |    £1,000,000.   |   £1,000,000.    |
    +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
    |                         |        £  _s. d._|      £   _s. d._ |
    |August 1851 to March 1852|                  |                  |
    |April 1852 to March 1853 |     1,315  9  5  |     315  18  1   |
    +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
    |  ”   1853      ”   1854 |     1,378 10  9  |     273  11  7   |
    |  ”   1854      ”   1855 |     1,310 18  1  |     507   6  3   |
    |  ”   1855      ”   1856 |     1,434  9  8  |     333   2  3   |
    |  ”   1856      ”   1857 |     1,222  6  4  |     303   6  2   |
    |  ”   1857      ”   1858 |       640 15  4  |     251   1 11   |
    |  ”   1858      ”   1859 |       582  2  1  |     314  13  3   |
    |  ”   1859      ”   1860 |       437 17  5  |      19   6  7   |
    +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
    |  ”   1860      ”   1861 |                  |                  |
    |  ”   1861      ”   1862 |       739 18  8  |     120  16  0   |
    |  ”   1862      ”   1863 |                  |                  |
    |  ”   1863      ”   1864 |       593  3  0  |       Nil.       |
    +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
    |  ”   1864      ”   1865 |       568  0  9  |      28  15  7   |
    |  ”   1865      ”   1866 |       481 19  4  |      31  16  9   |
    |  ”   1866      ”   1867 |       512  8  8  |        Nil.      |
    |  ”   1867      ”   1868 |       492 16 11  |      458  7  8   |
    |  ”   1868      ”   1869 |       469 16  2  |        Nil.      |
    +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
               C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER AND COMPTROLLER.
    ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF SILVER COINED AND OF THE LOSS ATTENDING
ITS MANIPULATION IN THE MELTING DEPARTMENT.

    +------------------------+-----------+-----------------+
    |                        |           |                 |
    |  Date—Financial Year.  |Weight of  |Value of Coinage.|
    |                        |Coinage.   |                 |
    |                        |           |                 |
    +------------------------+-----------+-----------------+
    |                        |  Ounces.  |    £    _s.  d._|
    |June 1851  to March 1852| 314689·050| 86,539   9   9¼ |
    |April 1852 to March 1853|1088196·550|299,254   1   0¼ |
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854|2135071·750|587,144  14   7½ |
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855| 501459·800|137,901   8  10¾ |
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856|1138355·000|313,047  12   6  |
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857|1792800·000|493,020   0   0  |
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858|1420560·000|390,654   0   0  |
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859|1449360·000|398,574   0   0  |
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860|2052720·000|564,499   0   0  |
    |March 1861  to June 1861| 650160·000|178,794   0   0  |
    +------------------------+-----------+-----------------+
    +------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+
    |                        |         |              |             |
    |  Date—Financial Year.  |Amount of| Value of the |  Value of   |
    |                        | Loss by | Silver Lost. | Sweep Sold. |
    |                        | Melting |              |             |
    +------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+
    |                        | Ounces. |  £   _s. d._ |  £   _s. d._|
    |June 1851  to March 1852|         |              |  36   0  1  |
    |April 1852 to March 1853| 1496·945| 411 13  2¼   | 111  19  4½ |
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854| 1814·808| 499  1  5¼   | 143   2  4  |
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855|  882·870| 242 15  9½   | 187  19  7  |
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856|  519·069| 142 14 10½   | 144   0  2¼ |
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857| 2912·149| 800 16  9¾   | 151  12  4¼ |
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858| 1001·676| 275  9  2½   | 100  13  6¼ |
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859| +733·101|+201 12  0¾   | 115   4 11  |
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860|  199·288|  54 16  1    | 101   8  8  |
    |March 1861  to June 1861|  238·495|  65  9 10¾   |  49   4  4½ |
    +------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+
    +------------------------+----------------+---------------+
    |                        |    Value of    |   Value of    |
    |  Date—Financial Year.  |   Lost Silver  |     Sweep     |
    |                        |   per Million  |  per Million  |
    |                        |     Coined.    |    Coined.    |
    +------------------------+----------------+---------------+
    |                        |   £   _s.  d._ |   £  _s.  d._ |
    |June 1851  to March 1852|                |               |
    |April 1852 to March 1853| 1,067  0  11¼  |  383  11   1  |
    |  ”   1853     ”    1854|   849 19  11¾  |  243  15   0  |
    |  ”   1854     ”    1855| 1,760 11  11¾  |1,363   2  10  |
    |  ”   1855     ”    1856|   456 19   7½  |  460   0   5¾ |
    |  ”   1856     ”    1857| 1,624  7   1¾  |  307  10   6¾ |
    |  ”   1857     ”    1858|   705  2   6½  |  257  14   2¾ |
    |  ”   1858     ”    1859|  +505 16   2½  |  289   2  10¾ |
    |  ”   1859     ”    1860|    97  1   8¼  |  179  13   9  |
    |March 1861  to June 1861|   366  6   3¼  |  275   5   7¼ |
    +------------------------+----------------+---------------+

To obtain the true amount of loss, deduct the value of the sweep from
the value of the silver lost.

RETURN FROM THE ROYAL MINT TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, DATED
17TH FEBRUARY, 1870. (THE LORD ROSSIE.)

MELTING DEPARTMENT.

A STATEMENT of the Weight and Value of the Silver Moneys coined in each
Financial Year from 1851 to 1869 inclusive, exhibiting the Weight and
Value of the Loss or Waste sustained in each Year, as well as the Value
of Sweep recovered, and the average Proportion of such Loss or Waste
and Sweep recovered to each Million Pounds Sterling coined.

    +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
    |         Date.           | Weight of |   Value of    |Amount of|
    |                         | Coinage.  |   Coinage.    |  Waste. |
    +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
    |                         |  Ounces.  |   £    _s. d._| Ounces. |
    |August 1851 to March 1852| 314689·050| 86,539  9  9  |         |
    |April 1852 to March 1853 |1088196·550|299,254  1  0  |1496·945 |
    +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
    |   ”  1853     ”    1854 |2134891·750|587,095  4  8  |1814·808 |
    |   ”  1854     ”    1855 | 501459·800|137,901  8 11  | 882·870 |
    |   ”  1855     ”    1856 |1138355·000|313,047 12  6  | 519·069 |
    |   ”  1856     ”    1857 |1792800·000|493,020  0  0  |2912·149 |
    |   ”  1857     ”    1858 |1420560·000|390,654  0  0  |1001·676 |
    |   ”  1858     ”    1859 |1449360·000|398,574  0  0  | 484·490 |
    |   ”  1859     ”    1860 |2052720·000|564,498  0  0  | 199·288 |
    +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
    |   ”  1860     ”    1861 | 625714·000|172,071  7  0  |         |
    |   ”  1861     ”    1862 | 769680·000|211,662  0  0  |*+20·516 |
    +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
    |   ”  1862     ”    1863 | 532147·610|146,340 11 10  |         |
    |   ”  1863     ”    1864 | 835920·000|229,878  0  0  | +48·918 |
    +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
    |   ”  1864     ”    1865 |1936800·000|532,620  0  0  |1516·266 |
    |   ”  1865     ”    1866 |1880640·000|517,176  0  0  |3296·589 |
    |   ”  1866     ”    1867 |1739520·000|478,368  0  0  |2923·255 |
    |   ”  1867     ”    1868 | 961200·000|264,330  0  0  |1526·136 |
    |   ”  1868     ”    1869 | 597600·000|164,340  0  0  | 599·329 |
    +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |         Date.           | Value of   |Value of Sweep|
    |                         |   Waste.   |  recovered.  |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |                         |£   _s. d._ |  £  _s.  d._ |
    |August 1851 to March 1852|            |              |
    |April 1852 to March 1853 |411 13   2  | 155  19  5½  |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |   ”  1853     ”    1854 |499  1   5  | 143  2   4   |
    |   ”  1854     ”    1855 |242 15   9  | 187 19   7   |
    |   ”  1855     ”    1856 |142 14  11  | 144  0   2¼  |
    |   ”  1856     ”    1857 |800 16  10  | 151 12   4¼  |
    |   ”  1857     ”    1858 |275  9   3  | 100 13   6¼  |
    |   ”  1858     ”    1859 |133  4   8  | 115  4  11   |
    |   ”  1859     ”    1860 | 54 16   1  | 101  8   8   |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |   ”  1860     ”    1861 |            |              |
    |   ”  1861     ”    1862 |  5 12  10  | 203  8  10½  |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |   ”  1862     ”    1863 |            |              |
    |   ”  1863     ”    1864 | 13  9   1  | 120  6   2   |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    |   ”  1864     ”    1865 |416 19   6  | 278  1   1½  |
    |   ”  1865     ”    1866 |906 11   3  | 104  5   8   |
    |   ”  1866     ”    1867 |803 17  11  |    Nil.      |
    |   ”  1867     ”    1868 |419 13   9  | 347  4   3½  |
    |   ”  1868     ”    1869 |164 16   3  |  31  0  11   |
    +-------------------------+------------+--------------+
    +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
    |         Date.           |Value of Waste |Value of Sweep |
    |                         |per £1,000,000.|per £1,000,000.|
    +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
    |                         |   £   _s. d._ |   £  _s.  d._ |
    |August 1851 to March 1852|               |               |
    |April 1852 to March 1853 | 1,067  0  10  |  404  5   9   |
    +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
    |   ”  1853     ”    1854 |   850  1   4  |  243 15   4   |
    |   ”  1854     ”    1855 | 1,760 11   8  |1,363  2  10   |
    |   ”  1855     ”    1856 |   455 19   8  |  460  0   3   |
    |   ”  1856     ”    1857 | 1,624  7   2  |  307 10   6   |
    |   ”  1857     ”    1858 |   705  2   7  |  257 14   2   |
    |   ”  1858     ”    1859 |   334  5   6  |  289  2  10   |
    |   ”  1859     ”    1860 |    97  1   8  |  179 13   9   |
    +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
    |   ”  1860     ”    1861 |               |               |
    |   ”  1861     ”    1862 |   14  14   0  |  530  3   3   |
    +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
    |   ”  1862     ”    1863 |               |               |
    |   ”  1863     ”    1864 |    35 15   2  |  319 15   7   |
    +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
    |   ”  1864     ”    1865 |   782 17   4  |  522  1   0   |
    |   ”  1865     ”    1866 | 1,752 18   2  |  201 12   9   |
    |   ”  1866     ”    1867 | 1,680  9  11  |      Nil.     |
    |   ”  1867     ”    1868 | 1,587 14   9  |1,313 11   3   |
    |   ”  1868     ”    1869 | 1,002 17   6  |  188 18   2   |
    +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
     _Note._—The Financial Years 1860/1861 1861/1862
     1862/1863 1863/1864 exhibit a _gain_ in the
     Melting Department.
           C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER AND COMPTROLLER.
    ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

By similar treatment to that applied to the table on page 132 this will
yield an average loss between June, 1851, and March, 1857, of £698
13_s._ 3_d._ per million coined; whereas in the period from April,
1857, to March, 1860, there is a gain by melting of £87 13_s._ 3_d._
per million pounds sterling coined. To look a little more closely into
these figures, it will be observed that in the year 1858-59 there was
a positive gain of no less than £505 16_s._ 2½_d._ on each million
coined; this is not to be explained by any known fact, but it seems
probable that in that year a circumstance occurred that had happened
many times previously, and from the prevalence of the same folly. At
the Mint Office it is the custom to weigh the silver from the coining
department to the melting department in drafts of 1,440 ounces, or
for occasions of 720 ounces. Now it not unfrequently happens that the
weigher leaves the counting of the number of drafts to his scalesman,
and so an error creeps in. Some days afterwards the coining department
finds itself short, say 720 ounces, and by searching its books
finds it has been credited with too little on a specific day; after
investigation the error is admitted, and the old receipt altered. Now
such an error happened on the 3rd of August, 1858, when 1,440 ounces,
or two journeys, were delivered, but not credited; however, on the
16th August this was discovered, and the receipt altered at the Mint
Office. It is probable that the melter never made a corresponding
alteration in his books, and if that be the case, the gain of 1858-59
will disappear, to be replaced by a loss of £487 0_s._ 8¼_d._, which
would appear to be more natural. Should these lines meet the eye of
the officer concerned, he could at once see if this be the explanation
of so large a gain, and which has caused him much anxiety. That a gain
can be made by melting is not a fact, although, if the statement be
examined for the year 1855-56, it will be seen that a gain of £3 0_s._
10¼_d._ appears to have been made; and once more, in 1859-60 a plus of
£82 12_s._ 0¾_d._ per million seems to have been realised. These facts,
taken as they stand, would mislead, and for reasons which shall now be
stated. Sufficient is, however, here shown to prove that the stoppage
of the use of oil effected a reduction in the habitual loss of the
melting-house, while this fact renders it impossible to show that the
stoppage of loss in the coining department was due to the more free use
of oil and dirt (see page 131).

In July and August, 1858, the melter being absent on leave, I was
directed by written order of the Master to take his duties. Silver
being under operation, the following quantities were melted, and with
the results recorded:—

             GIVEN TO MELT.
                                             Ounces.
    Ingots and alloy                       434,393·548
    Scissel                                457,032·810
    Clean ends                               1,440·000
    Extra alloy                                499·539
    Plus on weight charged by Mint Office       51·680
                                           -----------
                                           893,417·573

            PRODUCED BY MELTING.
                                             Ounces.
    Bars                                   889,974·690
    Ends                                     2,154·750
    Grains                                     462·050
    Assays                                     114·230
    Loss by melting                            711·853
                                           -----------
                                           893,417·573

To analyse this loss—for by weight it was absolute—will give much
information, and the details of proportionate loss were as follows:—

                                                          On each Million
                                                           Ounces Melted.
    On ingots of silver (produced from lead by Pattinson’s
       process) and alloy for the manufacture of medals           947·91
    On ingots, 5-franc pieces, and alloy                          263·85
    On ingots, 5-franc pieces, scissel, and alloy                 418·40
    Worn coin (culled from circulation) and scissel               710·06
    Scissel melted by itself                                    1,036·45
                                                                --------
                    Mean Loss                                     675·34

Thus, then, it appears that upon this weight of silver and alloy there
was, when melted, a loss of 711·853 ounces, or a mean loss of 675·34
ounces in standard silver; yet, on two undoubted occasions, the table
above given[114] exhibits a gain upon the work of two whole years;
why, therefore, should the loss just stated have been permitted to
take place, when every atom of metal was weighed in the presence of
witnesses before being placed in the pots, and was not lost sight of by
the officers concerned until it was returned to the scales to be again
weighed? The reply is simple: the gain in 1855-56 and 1859-60 was not
made, and its appearance is simply a matter of account, for the melter
was not accustomed to, and probably to this day does not, weigh silver
into his melting-pots—he is, or was, satisfied with the Mint Office
weights, which are so far from accurate that no ironmonger would accept
them.

On this melting alone, including 29 days’ receipts from the Mint
Office, there were differences to the extent of 82·11 ounces plus
their weight, and 30·43 ounces minus their weight, so that if the one
be deducted it still leaves an absolute plus on the weight charged by
the Mint Office of 51·68 ounces. Here, then, is a means of gain;[115]
but if the increase of weight derived from this source be taken on the
ingots and five-franc pieces bought, it is at the rate of 203·60 in
a million ounces purchased. Besides this, the melter is not charged
with the extra alloy he puts into his silver, and this on an ordinary
average amounts to 1,126 ounces on each million ounces wrought; so
that this work, which, in fact, did yield a loss of 711·853 ounces,
or at the rate of £796 on the million pounds sterling, would, by
the old system of computation, have lost £201. Since, then, it is
thus demonstrable that a difference of £591 arises when it is known
that the whole of the day’s work is weighed into as well as from the
melting-pot, it is but reasonable to believe that a greater difference
may have arisen when it was known by the Mint Office weigher that his
weights were not checked, and, therefore, in weighing ingots to the
melter, he probably just satisfied himself that they were as heavy as
they were charged by the bullion dealer, and allowed the plus weight
which is invariably given by that merchant to go to the melting-house
not charged into the account. It is a fact that if the weigher finds
ingots sent by the bullion dealer lighter than the weight charged,
he sends them back, this practice not being rigidly dependent on
the actual weight of the ingots as a whole; for unless each one is
distinctly heavier than the weight set against it, it is returned, or
the dealer must send silver to make up the required weight. And this
case has more than once arisen; so that in practice, if an ingot be
charged as 1,000 ounces, it must weigh indefinitely beyond that weight
up to 0·50 ounce, and is then received as 1,000 ounces; but if it
weigh in addition 0·60, then it is received as 1,000·50 ounces. These
“drafts,” as they are called, amounted on 402,573 ounces of ingots to
82·11 ounces, or at the rate of 203 per million ounces bought. When
calculating the proportion of metal for melting, it is the custom to
add 1 part of extra alloy to the thousand ounces of silver, and thus
to allow for the loss which takes place by annealing and blanching.
The extra alloy is not charged to the melter, as before said, but is
weighed to him, and thus goes really to reduce his loss; in practice
its proportionate use is increased, for after several re-meltings
of scissel (see page 35) the bars become richer in silver than is
required by the law, and then again extra alloy is added. In the case
of the silver melted in 1858 it must be stated, that if from the loss
exhibited the value of the sweep be deducted, that loss will still
be too high, because the silver had not yet been recovered from the
melting-pots; but with this allowance made, if we divide the total
value of the sweep from 1851 to 1857 by the total sum coined, we shall
arrive at a fair average price of that sweep, which may be taken at
£404 2_s._,[116] thus leaving a loss of £392 on each million pounds
sterling coined. But if, by the old style of calculation, the melter’s
loss be estimated on the weight charged to the melter by the Mint
office, it is £201, and this sum deducted from the average value of the
sweep will give a gain of £203, where it is perfectly certain, from
the extreme care which was taken, that the real loss was £392, which,
minus £54 4_s._ 7_d._, subsequently explained, becomes an absolute
loss, by melting weighed quantities, of £337 15_s._ 5_d._ per million
pounds sterling melted. Allusion has been made to the silver left in
the iron melting-pots: in the case which has been so much dwelt upon
cast-iron pots from Glasgow were used, these absorbing an exceptionally
large amount of silver. As, however, the object is to arrive at a fair
average, it will be wiser to take into consideration the ordinary
wrought-iron pot, which, although it costs more at first, is cheaper in
the long-run, as it will stand from fifty to sixty meltings, whereas
the bulk of the cast-iron pots used in 1858 leaked in the first
melting, and no one of them stood a whole day’s work.

[Footnote 114: See page 134.]

[Footnote 115: See pages 127, 130.]

[Footnote 116: See page 134.]

In treating of the melting of silver, it has been explained that
charcoal is placed in the pot, to prevent the oxidation of the alloy.
This, to a measured extent, it effects, but in the process it becomes
burned, and its ash forms a slag with the oxide of iron of the
pot, and this slag, always floating on the top of the fused silver,
gradually covers the inner surface of the pot as the silver is poured
out, and in so covering the pot secretes globules of silver in the
“pin-holes” of the iron. At the end of the useful existence of the
pot this silver is, or rather should be, obtained. The practice is to
“sweat the pot,” and to fuse in it some common table salt—chloride of
sodium. It would seem that the used-up wrought-iron pots yield by this
process, on an average, 12 ounces of silver. But all the silver is not
obtained at this operation, for the pots stand out of doors, in a yard
to which many persons have free access, for months before they are
treated professionally, and the result of the preliminary sweat which
they undergo is not a source of profit to the Mint.

In 1858 two wrought-iron pots were locked up when their active
period had passed, and these were subsequently treated with great
consideration, with a view to ascertain their capacity for retaining
silver. They yielded under my hands:—

                                                          Ounces.
    By simple sweating                                      20·00
    By detaching the slag and oxide from the pot
        and fusing it with salt                             24·70
    By separating the remaining silver from the pin-holes
       in the pot by means of diluted acid                   4·60
                                                           ------
                                                            49·30

In the whole period of that melting I used nine wrought-iron pots, of
which three were entirely used up, and six cast-iron pots, all of which
leaked—some two on one day: it would therefore seem fair to assume
that of these fifteen pots eight were worn out. We may then consider
that had all the eight pots been carefully treated, and each made to
yield its fair proportion of silver, we should have recovered silver at
the rate above shown, or 24·65 ounces from each pot, and this weight,
multiplied by eight, as proposed, will give 197·20 ounces, which, at
5_s._ 6_d._ an ounce, would be worth £54 4_s._ 7_d._, and by this
amount may that loss of £392 be reduced, when the actual loss will be
£337 15_s._ 5_d._, as determined by most carefully-conducted operations
on weighed quantities. This loss, however, is not final, although
absolute, because the sweep was sold for £289 2_s._ 10¾_d._;[117] and,
deducting this, the final loss is £48 12_s._ 6¼_d._ on each million
pounds sterling melted. There can be no doubt but that this is at
least one-third in excess of the loss which should take place; yet,
between 1851-57, it was, after all deductions for sweep, recoveries
from worn-out pots, &c., had been made, no less than £698 13_s._ 3_d._
This excess might be accounted for either as wasteage in the melter’s
department, or as legitimate loss by melting caused by the excess of
oil sent on the scissel; but since the coiners permitted unnecessary
loss to accrue, it will be right to charge this sum to their account,
because, if they received metal free from oil, and returned it to the
melter sustaining too much oil, it is evident that they received from
their men bullion and oil in place of bullion. I therefore add £650
0_s._ 8¾_d._, the difference between £48 12_s._ 6¼_d._ and £698 13_s._
3_d._, to the wasteage previously explained,[118] when that sum will be
raised to £1,297 16_s._ 0¾_d._ on each million of silver coined.

[Footnote 117: See page 134.]

[Footnote 118: See pages 131, 136.]

In all former calculations the value has been determined on the million
coined; but now that we approach the necessary considerations as to
the loss by melting which should absolutely take place, it becomes
necessary to state that, as a rule, 100 parts of silver bars should
produce 57 parts of coined money, and in this proportion must the value
of the sweep be reduced, that we may obtain its value proportioned to
the silver lost by weight in melting. The sweep results, as in the case
of gold, from the grinding of the burnt refuse of the melting-house,
which consists of the sweepings from the floor, partly-used charcoal,
and dirt—“matter in the wrong place,” as Lord Palmerston so aptly
designated it. At the end of the coinage this is sold, and its value
is applied to the reduction of the apparent loss by melting. In the
case now under discussion, we have found that there was an absolute
loss by weight of 711·853 ounces on 893,417·573 ounces of bullion given
to be melted. By proportion, this weight is equal to 796·764 ounces
on each million. The sweep was sold for £289 2_s._ 10¾_d._ for each
million coined; therefore, to obtain the specific amount that should
be deducted by this source from the loss, we must assume that the
coined money was 57 per cent. upon the bullion melted, when £164 16_s._
3½_d._ becomes the value of the sweep belonging to each million melted.
Since this sum is calculated by value, we will convert it into ounces,
which is a simple process; for, as the other sums bear proportion to
pounds sterling, we have but to consider it as ounces, when the sum
we require will be 164·814. To this sum is to be added the amount of
silver due from the melting-pots, as before explained, and which is
220·724 ounces, because it has been assumed that we should obtain 24·65
from each on the average number of pots used in melting, and this,
calculated into the million, is as above. The total of these two sums,
385·538, deducted from 796·764, leaves a final loss of 411·126 ounces
by weight in melting a million ounces of standard silver.

By experiments made with the utmost care, I arrived at the conclusion
that, in melting silver bullion for a complete coinage, the loss by
melting should not exceed £100 on each million sterling melted, and
in this conclusion I am confirmed in a remarkable manner by Colonel
Smith,[119] who, with vast opportunities for careful every-day work and
by absolute weighing, found a loss of 200 in each million for dirt and
oxygen alone, and this he is willing to consider as 250 on each million
of scissel; but he found his loss by melting ingots 30 on the million,
and assuming that the total of a coinage would be half ingots and half
scissel, this would give an average of 140 when he was “convinced that
he was robbed,” and that this was so he proved by compelling the naked
workmen, by means of physic, to disgorge the silver they had swallowed.
He, however, was probably still robbed, for black men rub pieces of
bullion or coins together and secrete the dust obtained by that means
in their hair, and thus abstract metal from the works of the Brazilian
Mining Association, and probably from the mints in India. To such an
extent is robbery by this means carried on that the Association above
referred to causes the head of each person to be washed before he
leaves work, and thus recovers a large amount of gold dust.

[Footnote 119: See Report by Colonel J. T. Smith on Indian Mints from
1841-2 to 1852-3. Printed by authority at Madras, 1855.]

If then, as has been shown, there is a final loss of £411 2_s._ 6_d._
on each million of silver melted, we must now determine that this sum
amounts to £721 5_s._ 5½_d._ on each million pounds sterling _coined_;
and since by coining a loss is sustained equal to £365 15_s._ 10½_d._,
the total final loss is no less than £1,132 7_s._ 11½_d._ per million
pounds sterling of silver coined. Such being the facts ascertained
by the scales, we find that the loss by ACCOUNT is returned at £365
15_s._ 10½_d._ for the coining department, while, at the same period,
the melting-house account shows a gain of £87 13_s._ 3_d._, which,
deducted from the loss of the coining department, gives a final loss
equal to £278 2_s._ 7½_d._, as against, in the former period, a loss
by coining of £1,013 11_s._ 2½_d._, and by melting of £698 13_s._
3_d._, or a total final sum of £1,712 4_s._ 5½_d._ The difference,
then, between these two final sums, or £1,434 1_s._ 10_d._, shows the
actual loss that the Mint authorities submitted to without explanation
on each million of silver coined between June, 1851, and March, 1857.
This sum is exactly 8_s._ 8_d._ for each £100 coined, while the French
contract to coin each £100 for 15_s._, including loss, wages, salaries,
&c. Although, for the sake of accurate demonstration, I have accepted
the facts as stated, it is but fair that I should compare the results
actually obtained with those stated by the usual methods, and then
the contrast will become more apparent; for whereas the proportional
loss by melting is shown to have been on weighed quantities £721
5_s._ 5½_d._, it is a fact that by the usual methods of account, that
of neglecting to charge to the melter the extra weight added to the
ingots by the system of purchase, and omitting the weight of the extra
alloy, this loss becomes reduced to insignificant proportions, for it
was exactly £180 0_s._ 1_d._, and as the sweep sold for £164 16_s._
0½_d._ per million melted, the final loss would be but £15 3_s._
11½_d._ Yet, for the sake of truth, I consider it better to charge to
each department the metal by weight, and that weight should include
every atom, because then, an exceptional loss having taken place,
its significance is at once apparent; whereas, when unknown weights
are placed in the melting-pot, the losses may vary to a considerable
extent, and yet not be detected. By this plan fictitious gain becomes
impossible—apparent loss inevitable; but _that loss is so determinate_
that it can be calculated to a nicety, and any figure obtained beyond
that _calculated_ exhibits one of two facts,—that the melting or
coining, or both, have by too great a degree refined the silver under
operation, and this is demonstrated by the final assays, or UNNECESSARY
WASTE IS AGAIN PERMITTED, but both result from carelessness; therefore
the Mint Master’s duty is perfectly clear. While, then, absolute gain
is impossible, and loss inevitable, it is, perhaps, well to exhibit the
results of Colonel Smith’s experience in the Indian Mints, because that
gentleman states that there can be no loss, and that there must be a
gain. Thus, then, he and I are antagonistic on the plainest possible
point; yet an examination of his statement will show that his gain,
although absolute, is not legitimate, but results from a near approach
to obtaining bullion without paying for it.

It must, then, be explained that in England, and in the Indian Mints,
it is not the custom to assay bullion with a view to the determination
of its actual value, but only to the nearest part of a pennyweight.
Thus, standard silver is composed of 222 parts of silver and 18 of
copper in 240. Assuming that it is the custom to determine the amount
of silver to within half a pennyweight; and that, the assay showed
23 pennyweights and 11 grains, the silver ingot would be reported as
containing 23 pennyweights, and the owner would lose the 11 grains,
whereas it should be the custom to determine absolutely the real value
of the ingot. Now, in India, Colonel Smith found these “unreported
fractions,” when alloyed with copper, amounted to 1,230 parts on each
million purchased, so that if he paid for a million ounces, he received
1,001,230 ounces. Here, then, was part of his profit. In addition to
this gain he made another by the customary turn of the scale,[120] but
he has not told us its amount; yet his final result, from the receipt
of the bullion to its return to the merchants as coined money, is at
the rate of £1,165 gain on each million pounds sterling coined. Now
it is clear that if so large a sum as £1,230 per million is obtained
without purchase from the merchant, either that merchant should himself
saturate those unreported fractions with alloy, or make Colonel Smith’s
mints pay for them. It is asserted that this practice “exists in the
Royal Mint, but not to so large an extent;” yet Colonel Smith states it
to be at the rate of £932 per million coined. If this be the case, the
Mint books should show for its official accounts a vast gain, instead
of, as is the case represented by its purely manufacturing accounts, a
loss. This may possibly be the case, but, so far as my experience goes,
it is against the practice; for the bullion received is invariably
greater in weight than that returned in coined money.

[Footnote 120: See pages 137-138.]

Colonel Smith has determined with great precision that from dirt alone
there is a loss by melting of 1 part in each thousand melted. Before
he paid for bullion he invariably insisted on its being pre-melted,
because the Mint thus saved the loss occasioned by adhering dirt and
extraneous matter; this was wise if the merchants would submit to it,
but it is doubtful if English bullion dealers would first melt dollars
and five-franc pieces before selling them to the Royal Mint.

With bullion thus manipulated I have shown that the Royal Mint also
made a gain, but such gain is not real (see pages 136, 137, 138), for
it is evident that the silver having been bought with the intention of
being converted into standard silver, each grain should be alloyed,
and the whole amount of fine silver being thus alloyed should produce
its calculated weight of standard silver; therefore in each department
every atom should be weighed, and the total weight charged to any
particular operation returned or accounted for, and under these
circumstances no gain can result.

Colonel Smith, however, has determined with great care the following
facts from every-day work, and these are so valuable that it is deemed
wise to quote them. He found, then, that he made an actual gain by
coining from the above circumstances of 1,230 ounces on each million
ounces of rupees produced as coin. In the blanching of the blanks that
were used for the making of that coined money the loss by blanching was
at the rate of 966 ounces per million blanched, and from the acid used
in blanching he obtained 726 ounces of metallic copper, so that of the
966 ounces which disappeared only 240 ounces were a real loss, which
resulted from oxygen and dirt. Here, then, are reliable figures; and,
as he sold his sweep for a sum equal to 140 ounces of silver for each
million ounces coined, it is clear that his real loss was just 826 on
each million ounces coined. It must be seen that although the copper
was recovered, it should in these calculations be neglected, because
in the Royal Mint it is not in practice deemed wise (nor, indeed, is
it the every-day custom in India) to separate this copper; therefore
we will consider the whole matter lost to the Mint. Since, then, he
has demonstrated that he received in his clean ingots more silver by
1,230 ounces than he paid for, it is only necessary to add this sum
to the weight he charges to himself, which will then be 1,001,230
ounces; in manipulating this total weight he shows that he lost 554
ounces by melting and 826 ounces by blanching, or a total loss of
£1,380 per million pounds sterling. This, compared with the practice
in the Royal Mint, shows, as Colonel Smith says, that the Mints of
India do not obtain their legitimate amount of profit; and he, in
his own words, attributes the loss to what he considers its only fit
cause—“peculation.” For even in the Royal Mint—ill-managed institution
that it is—the average annual loss, taken by the system of weighing,
is only £721 5_s._ 5½_d._ Still, as showing the fluctuations, it is
curious to observe that in the last period given, viz., from March to
June, 1861, the recorded loss by melting is £91 0_s._ 8_d._, while that
by coining is £1,949 9_s._ 6_d._,[121] or a final loss of no less than
£2,040 10_s._ 2_d._

[Footnote 121: See pages 132-134.]

Having given the returns relating to gold ordered by the House of
Lords, I also give those exhibiting similar details for silver, and
place that relating to coining on page 133, while that demonstrating
the facts as regards melting will be found on page 135.

Mr. Fremantle assures us in his Report that “the ‘waste’ shown to have
existed of late years has not been excessive,” while Mr. Roberts tells
us, “The apparent loss on silver melting is two grains on the troy
pound, or 0·346 per mille, much of the metal being recoverable from
sweep.” 0·346 per mille is 346 per million, so we will take these two
statements into consideration as regards the returns now to be noticed.

I propose to submit the following abstract from the return on page 135,
and thus bring into view _facts_ recorded by the Mint Officials, that
they may be contrasted with _opinions_ expressed by those gentlemen,
and for this purpose I deduct the value of the sweep from that of
the waste, and thus arrive at the amount of the latter, and as “of
late years” may fairly be taken to express the five last past, I will
operate on those periods only.

    +---------------+-------+------------------+------+----------------+
    |Value of Waste |       |Value of Sweep per|      | Final Loss by  |
    |per £1,000,000.|       |    £1,000,000.   |      |     Melting    |
    |               |       |                  |      |     Silver.    |
    +---------------|       |------------------|      |----------------|
    |               |Deduct |                  | The  |                |
    |   £   _s. d._ | Value |    £  _s. d._    |Result|     £  _s. d._ |
    |   782 17  4   |  of   |   522  1 10      | is a |    260 15  6   |
    | 1,752 18  2   |Sweep, |   211 12  9      |      |  1,541  5  5   |
    | 1,680  9 11   |       |     Nil.         |      |  1,680  9 11   |
    | 1,587 14  9   |       | 1,313 11  3      |      |    274  3  6   |
    | 1,002 17  6   |       |   188 18  2      |      |    813 19  4   |
    +---------------+-------+------------------+------+----------------+
    |              Total Loss divided by 5 years         4,570 13  8   |
    |                                                  ----------------+
    |       Gives the Average Loss by Melting Silver       916  2  8¾  |
    +------------------------------------------------------------------+

In other words, the loss which actually accrues is practically three
times as great as Mr. Roberts finds necessary, and yet Mr. Fremantle
approvingly says _it is not excessive_. I should advise Mr. Roberts
to return to the use of wrought-iron pots and pay proper attention to
the melting, FOR I HAVE PROVED that £100 on a million sterling is as
much waste as should LEGITIMATELY arise, and Colonel Smith confirms my
determinations, as will be seen at pages 140-141. If these officers
will pay sufficient attention to their business, they need not fear the
variations of assay pointed out by LEVOL. These arise, it is true, but
to an imperceptible extent only when melting is properly conducted,
as I proved to the entire satisfaction of Mr. Graham in August, 1858,
and who, in consequence, relinquished his intention of adopting the
then proposed mode of taking silver for assay from the fluid metal by
ladles. It is not by hunting hopeless hobbies that losses are to be
stopped, nor will the silver be found in the chimneys—if so, some of
it should be in those of the present Mint. Will Mr. Fremantle or Mr.
Roberts state what has become of £916 worth of silver from each million
coined in the past five years? The actual value lost is £4,580 14_s._
6_d._, sufficient to make four immense ingots, which would surely stop
the draught of any chimney in the Mint.

As this return has yielded matter for comment, I will refer briefly to
that which exhibits the additional loss by coining, and shown on page
133, the following abstract for the past five years will suffice.

    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
    |   Value of  |        |   Value of   |        |   Final Loss     |
    |  Waste per  |        |  Sweep per   |        |  by  Coining     |
    | £1,000,000. |        |  £1,000,000. |        |    Silver.       |
    +-------------|        |--------------|        |------------------|
    |  £  _s. d._ |        |  £  _s. d._  |  The   |    £    _s. d._  |
    | 568  0  9   | Deduct |  28 15  7    |        |    539   5  2    |
    | 481 19  4   |  Value |  31 16  9    | Result |    450   2  7    |
    | 512  8  8   |   of   |    Nil.      |        |    512   8  8    |
    | 492 16 11   | Sweep, | 458  7  8    |  is a  |     34   9  3    |
    | 469 16  2   |        |       Nil.   |        |    469  16  2    |
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
    |          Total Loss divided by 5 years          2,006   1 10    |
    |                                                -----------------+
    |       Gives the Average Loss by Coining Silver     401  4  4¼   |
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+

Whereas then the loss from 1851 to 1857 averaged, as I have shown on
page 131, £1,013 11_s._ 2¼_d._, and fell under my management in the
period between 1857 and 1860 to £365 15_s._ 10½_d._, it has now again
risen to £401 4_s._ 4_d._—a steady increase at the rate of 10 per
cent., which seems unreasonable.

A rigid Parliamentary inquiry into the circumstances of the Mint is
as great a necessity at this time as it was shown to be in 1856; and
such an inquiry might demonstrate not only a want of ability, but also
whether all the officers are satisfied; whether there be not great
heart-burnings, tending to a not very complacent style of performing
their duty.

I quote the following from Hansard’s Debates, as having occurred in the
House of Lords, to show that the Government steadily resists inquiry
into the affairs of the Mint; yet I hope the time will arrive when
Parliament will assert its right and induce Ministers to yield an
inquiry, however much “Mr. Lowe may deprecate it.” On the 22nd March,
1870,

    “LORD KINNAIRD said: I stated the other night
    that great robberies have notoriously taken place, and
    I maintain that these peculations and robberies still
    continue. If I had an opportunity before a Committee, I
    could prove this, but the returns which I have obtained
    will show the correctness of what I am stating. I was not
    surprised the other evening at a particular return being
    refused, for the officials of the Mint naturally dislike
    further exposure; but the returns before us clearly show
    that under the term ‘waste,’ which should rather be
    ‘stolen,’ large sums are lost in coinage. There ought to
    be no loss in coinage if the Mint was properly conducted.
    There might, indeed, be a small loss of £100 on the million
    in the melting department; but in the coining there should
    be a gain of at least £59, making the net loss £41. Instead
    of this, however, there was a loss, as those returns show,
    of £460 on every million coined. What becomes of that sum?
    It must go into some one’s pocket, and in point of fact
    it is abstracted. Look, too, at the large sums which are
    paid to the Bank of England for loss every time there is a
    coinage; at one time there was a loss of £1,132 on every
    million for loss of gold abstracted and not returned in
    coinage. From 1851 to 1857 there was a loss; in the next
    two years there was a gain; the next two years there was
    a loss and the following year there was a gain, and after
    that losses. Now why should not the gain continue? Why
    was there a gain? Because the men were properly looked
    after, and could not abstract the precious metal.... I
    hope your Lordships will agree to refer this bill to a
    Select Committee, or will hereafter agree to an independent
    inquiry into the Mint, conducted by other gentlemen than
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Private Secretary and the
    Deputy Master.... I move that the Bill be referred to a
    Select Committee.”

I again quote Hansard’s Debates, 24th March, 1870:—

    “LORD KINNAIRD said: The noble Marquess, (the
    Marquess of Lansdowne) stated on Tuesday night that there
    was a considerable profit on silver, which no doubt ought
    to be the case; but the returns obtained by an Honourable
    Member in the House of Commons showed that, though in some
    years there was a gain, in nine years the total loss on the
    coinage of silver was £5,373. Bad workmanship, he might
    remark, made the coins much less durable, and therefore
    caused expense by rendering earlier repair of the coinage
    necessary. He hoped that, later in the session, the
    Government would concede an inquiry into the management of
    the Mint, when he would undertake to prove his allegations
    of mismanagement and peculation, and indeed the returns
    proved this....

    “The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE thought that the noble
    Lord confounded two things. There was a loss incurred by
    the public in keeping the silver coinage up to its proper
    standard; but in its manufacture into coin, there was a
    considerable gain, amounting to something like £20,000.”

Again, on the 18th July, I also quote from Hansard’s Debates:—

    THE MANAGEMENT OF THE MINT.—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

      “LORD KINNAIRD: I rise to move for a Select
      Committee to inquire into the past and present management
      of the Mint, and although I very much regret that it is the
      intention of the Government not to assent to my Motion, I
      feel bound, nevertheless, to call your Lordships’ attention
      to the mismanagement of the Department to which my Motion
      refers. It will be in your Lordships’ recollection that
      when the Coinage Bill was under consideration I moved
      for certain returns connected with the gold coinage, my
      object being to show that considerable loss occurred in the
      process of coining. Some of those returns were granted,
      but others were refused on the plea that they were too
      voluminous to lay on your Lordships’ table. But I have
      made inquiries, and find that refusal was made because
      the officials of the Mint did not wish for any searching
      inquiry, and because the returns would have exposed certain
      malpractices connected with the coinage. I also moved, when
      the Bill was in Committee, for certain returns connected
      with the coinage of silver and the transactions between
      the Bank of England and the Mint. I was informed on that
      occasion that no record was kept of those transactions;
      I saw at the time that was a subterfuge, and that the
      officials knew these returns would disclose certain
      malpractices at the Mint which they would prefer were not
      made public, for not only is a record of these transactions
      kept, but the returns could be granted with ease. I have
      found, however, that a return has been presented to the
      House of Commons, which gives me the principal part of the
      information I desired to obtain by the returns for which
      I moved. That return, I have heard said, is not strictly
      correct; but it is a return presented to Parliament,
      and, as far as the figures to which I wish to refer are
      concerned, I have reason to believe they must be correct.
      The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who answered
      me on that occasion, admitted that as regards the gold
      there was great loss in coinage. He said that although
      the Government was not supposed to make money by the gold
      coinage, they made a considerable sum by the silver; and
      at another time (on the 24th March) he said that although
      there was a loss resulting from keeping the silver up to
      the proper standard, through wear and tear, yet on the
      manufacture there was a profit of something like £20,000
      a year. Now, I am not going to hold the noble Marquess to
      any statement he made on that occasion, because not being
      himself connected with the Mint he must have been dependent
      on the officials; but I can assure him that statement is
      entirely erroneous. It is quite true that a profit was made
      in the Mint in the year 1859 of £27,032 on the coinage of
      silver, and this arose from the large quantity coined and
      the very small purchase of worn coin. £647,064 worth of
      silver was coined in that year as against a yearly average
      of £341,018, and the purchase of worn coin amounted to only
      £8,096 as against the average of £14,633. But although this
      profit of £27,032 was made in this year, there was a loss
      of £5,373 during the next nine years. Now, my Lords, as
      regards the coinage of silver, there should be an uniform
      profit. The price of silver is 5_s._ 1_d._ or
      5_s._ 1⅜_d._ per ounce, so that there should be
      a profit of 7½ per cent. upon the silver coin. In 1868 the
      sum purchased was £312,252, which should have yielded a
      profit of £23,368, but the return showed a loss of £10,896;
      so that, adding the loss on to what the profit should
      have been, we find that the Mint was £34,265 on the wrong
      side that year in its silver coinage; but inasmuch as the
      loss on the purchase of worn silver was £18,058 in that
      year, the net loss to the Mint through mismanagement was
      £16,207. Now, what became of that sum of money? How has
      it disappeared? The noble Lord admits gold was abstracted
      during the process of coining, and I say that the loss now
      arises from peculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
      himself contradicts the noble Lord, and admits that there
      is a loss on silver, for in the estimates I find he asked
      the House of Commons to vote £1,000 to make good the loss
      on silver, in addition to £15,000 for the loss occasioned
      by repairing that coinage for the coming year, which has
      to be paid out of the pockets of the people instead of the
      Exchequer being replenished by the legitimate profit of
      £20,000. But the most extraordinary loss is in the coinage
      of copper. One ton of copper costs about £100, and when
      converted into coin it is worth £358, giving an actual
      gross profit of £258; yet I find the Chancellor of the
      Exchequer asked for £1,000 last year to make good the loss
      on the copper coinage. I have been rather amused to find
      the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking slightingly of the
      loss on the gold coinage, saying in all probability it went
      up the chimney. I think it is more likely to have gone up
      “the spout.” Now, I find another item in the estimates of
      £1,800 for the expenses of an inquiry into foreign Mints.
      This represents the expenses of three gentlemen who are
      going to inquire into the method of coining adopted on the
      Continent; but, on inquiry, I find that nearly all the
      machinery in use in foreign Mints went from this country,
      so that we could ascertain all that we want to know about
      the practice in foreign Mints, by making inquiries of
      certain engineering firms in this country. I may be told
      that the foreign Mints may have improved on the machinery
      supplied to them, but even this may be ascertained without
      going to this enormous expense. Moreover, most of the
      coining on the Continent is done by contract, and it
      is not likely that contractors will give a Government
      Commissioner, who is competing with them by advertisement,
      much information as to the way in which they carry on their
      work; so that altogether this £1,800 will be completely
      thrown away. And who are the gentlemen commissioned to make
      this inquiry? The Deputy Master is one of them—a most
      excellent, financial man; but, unfortunately, he knows
      nothing of the practical part of the business, and will
      gain very little by his trip. Then there is Mr. Roberts,
      lately appointed chemist to the Mint; ... and the third
      gentleman is Mr. Napier, one qualified in every respect
      for the duty. In 1858 a sum of £1,100 was set apart for
      the purchase of a filing machine in accordance with an
      estimate sent in by Mr. Napier for the purpose; but, before
      the order was executed, an officer in the Mint made a
      machine answering every purpose, which cost only £60, and
      nobody knows what became of this £1,100. I believe this
      Commission is going to Spain, but Mr. Napier manufactured
      the machinery in use there, so he is going to Spain to see
      how his own machines work, and he is to receive £2,000
      for doing it. Perhaps, however, as the war has broken out
      the trip will be postponed. Now, my Lords, what I say I
      am prepared to substantiate before a Committee, and I
      challenge contradiction. That an inquiry is needed even at
      this late period of the session is patent, for the House
      of Commons has only recently voted no less than £18,000
      to make up the losses in the Mint. Mr. Fremantle and Mr.
      Rivers Wilson have made a Report on the subject of some
      of these complaints, and have suggested improvements; but
      these improvements would have no effect upon the working of
      the establishment, and would not touch the main defects in
      the system. One of the alterations made in consequence of
      that Report was a revision of the scale of wages. Formerly
      the workmen had a retaining fee varying from 6_s._ to
      10_s._ per week when unemployed, and a certain wage
      beside when at work. But the pay was very small, and it
      was thought this might lead to peculation. The scale has
      accordingly been revised by the payment of £1 per week as
      retaining fee, but the revision is calculated to give the
      men a little less on the whole, a result to be expected
      when the arrangement was made by so skilful a financier
      as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the country saves
      £100 a year out of the workmen’s wages. But the most
      extraordinary part of the revision is to come; and this
      affords another instance with the sugar duties, hawkers’
      licenses, and the gun tax, of the readiness with which the
      Chancellor of the Exchequer jumps to conclusions, without
      being at the trouble to inform himself upon the subject in
      hand. The workmen are by this new scale to receive less
      when coining gold than when coining silver, although the
      temptation to peculation is greater, so that at the time
      when their honesty should be secured by good payment, they
      are to be treated with a niggardly hand, and who can be
      surprised if they help themselves? The noble Marquess says
      there has been only one case of dismissal for peculation;
      but, if he inquires further, he will find there have been
      twelve. No prosecution has followed these dismissals, nor
      even an inquiry. Prosecutions would not be palatable to the
      Mint authorities, because they would expose the system.
      Now, I can assure your Lordships, that these statements
      I have made are true in every respect, and I challenge
      contradiction; and I trust the Government will think the
      facts really demand a searching inquiry. More than a
      year since, I brought the subject before the Chancellor
      of the Exchequer, but it was pooh-poohed, and I was told
      that a private inquiry would be made: but no inquiry has
      been made, and the system remains unamended. I therefore
      move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the past and
      present management of the Mint.

      The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I regret that it is my
      duty to decline to accede to the motion of the noble Lord,
      but I feel sure your Lordships will admit, when I have
      made a brief statement of the facts of the case, that the
      Government is warranted in refusing the Committee. I must
      admit that two cases of peculation have occurred at the
      Mint; but the persons concerned were dismissed, and there
      has been no reason to suspect a recurrence of the practice;
      I am sure therefore, the noble Lord is under a
      misapprehension[122] when he says there have been twelve
      cases of dismissal for peculation during the last few
      years. As regards the charge of wasteful management, I must
      repeat the statement I made on a previous occasion. The
      noble Lord, I fear, confuses two things—namely, the loss
      occurring from the necessity of keeping the silver coinage
      up to the proper standard, and the gain which accrues from
      the coining; and, on the whole, there is a distinct gain,
      although I may, on a previous occasion, have overstated the
      amount. There is, notwithstanding the information of which
      the noble Lord appears to be possessed, a gain of £5,000
      a year on the silver coinage. The amount of waste on the
      gold coinage has, within the last few years, been extremely
      moderate: it is at present, 1_s._ per £100; and an
      eminent firm of refiners in the city has given an opinion
      that this is very satisfactory. So much for the past. With
      regard to the present, I must say that as the department
      has recently been reorganised, it would be hardly fair,
      before it had got into full working order, to institute
      an inquiry. The staff has been reduced, thus effecting
      a saving on this year’s estimates of £5,000; the system
      of the payment of wages has been altered, resulting in a
      small saving and in a marked effect on the staff; and the
      melting and coining departments have been united, avoiding
      that apparent confusion between the accounts of the two
      departments, which has, in some respects, misled the
      noble Lord. Lastly, I come to the Commission of Inquiry,
      which has been travelling on the Continent. Now, if the
      machines in use on the Continent have been mostly made at
      Birmingham, much may be learnt, as to their application and
      the character of the metals used, by the proposed inquiry.
      As regards the members of that Commission, Mr. Roberts is
      a very eminent chemist, and has proved his capabilities
      by devising a system for depriving gold of the obnoxious
      properties on which the noble Lord recently commented.
      The noble Lord did not fail to admit that Mr. Napier was
      eminently qualified for a post on the Commission; and, as
      regards the Deputy Master, he has exhibited great abilities
      in discharging the duties of his office, and I do not
      think the noble Lord has said a single word to show he has
      forfeited our good opinion.

[Footnote 122: I am prepared to give the names of the parties dismissed
and the dates of dismissal.—G. F. A.]

Since I am desirous of drawing attention to the affairs of a Public
Department, and to that only, I have omitted some passages in the
foregoing debates because they did not affect the subject under
discussion; still, I quote the remainder of the debate in so far as it
was personal to myself in the Appendix at pages 197-198. It will have
been seen that in these debates in the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne,
on the part of the Government, made statements to which Lord Kinnaird,
in his honoured letter to me, alludes, I therefore proceed to offer a
few remarks.

That Lord Kinnaird does not confound _loss on the coinage_ with loss
occasioned by the repair or “keeping of the coinage up to standard,”
is demonstrated by his lordship’s speeches, and by the return No. 157,
1869, presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Ayrton, which shows
that, in 1859, £647,064 of _coined money_ was obtained by _coining_
£620,031 of silver purchased for coining, giving £27,033 as a clear
profit for that especial year.

If, however, the circumstances be examined, it will be found that in
1859 only £8,096 was lost by the purchase of worn silver coin, as
against the yearly average (shown on page 5 in the return, but not
inserted by me) of £14,633. Yet even this exceptional gain is not
creditable, for, at the rate of 7½ per cent., it should have been
£46,502 instead of £27,033.

The remaining nine years on the return—No. 157, 1869—show an average
loss by the silver coinage as exhibited in the next table compiled from
it. The Mint returns as presented to Parliament require explanation. I
have therefore added two columns to demonstrate the profit and loss.

    +-------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------+
    | Date. | Total Value of  |  Real Cost or   |  Profit  |    Loss   |
    |       | Silver Coined.  | Value of Metal. | Realised.|Sustained. |
    +-------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------+
    |       |          £      |        £        |       £  |     £     |
    | 1860  |       218,403   |     222,981     |          |    4,577  |
    | 1861  |       209,484   |     215,029     |          |    5,545  |
    | 1862  |       148,518   |     159,948     |          |   11,429  |
    | 1863  |       161,172   |     171,855     |          |   10,688  |
    | 1864  |       535,194   |     521,003     |  14,190  |           |
    | 1865  |       501,732   |     483,861     |  17,870  |           |
    | 1866  |       493,416   |     486,113     |   7,302  |           |
    | 1867  |       193,842   |     195,445     |          |    1,603  |
    | 1868  |       301,356   |     312,252     |          |   10,896  |
    |       +-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------+
    |       |     2,763,117   |   2,768,487     |  39,362  |   44,733  |
    |       |                 |                 +----------+-----------+
    |  Deducting the Profit, £39,362, the Final Loss becomes   £5,371  |
    +-------+----------------------------------------------------------+

Such final loss is indefensible. Yet Lord Lansdowne is led to believe
that the seigniorage on silver yields a profit of £5,000 a year
(modified from his first statement of £20,000), whereas this return,
inclusive of the £27,033 before explained, exhibits a profit of £21,659
in ten years, or of an average of £2,165 per annum. This statement
will, however, deceive those who rely on it, for two reasons. The year
1859, as already pointed out, is exceptional; and another return, No.
67, 1870, made to the House of Commons (see page 150) shows that,
inclusive of this anomalous gain, the silver coinage has been a source
of loss to the country to the exact average amount of 17_s._ 6_d._
on each £100 purchased for coinage. In printing this return I have
made it up to 1868, omitting the year 1869, which alone shows a loss
of £120,000, and must therefore be an incomplete return. It is to be
regretted that the Government refused on two occasions a return of the
account of losses on silver manufacture, because such a return would
have included loss by assay as well as loss by coining and melting.
The refusals were undoubtedly based on fear of exposure, because the
return can be given readily—that they can be given, is proved by the
fact that I have read the accounts in the bill books at the Mint, and
have copies of such entries. Lord Lansdowne was instructed to state
that no such accounts are kept. The subterfuge of the Mint Authorities
consists in the fact that Lord Kinnaird has not asked for the return
in the precise words in which the account is kept; it cannot, however,
be again refused if moved for as “transferred from the account of the
Mint expenses, for the satisfaction of the Audit Office to account for
the waste or loss by coining silver.” If the Mint Authorities will
place the bill book of the Royal Mint before me for a few hours, I
will compile the table. Such a return would exhibit the fact that in
the five years last past, the loss by misplacement and mismanagement
exceeds £1,867 3_s._ 10¾_d._ per million coined; it would show that
the average amount of loss reaches 3_s._ 9¾_d._ for each £100 coined,
such sum being in fact about one-third of the total sum charged by the
contractors who conduct the coinage in Paris for France. The contractor
for the Paris Mint, in his charge, includes loss of silver by coining,
melting, and assay, wear and tear of machinery, wages to workmen for
labour, salaries and contingent expenses; and while bearing these
charges, he makes a handsome

     AN ACCOUNT OF THE SUMS ADVANCED IN EACH YEAR FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF BULLION FOR COINAGE;
     AND OF THE SUMS PAID IN EACH YEAR TO THE ACCOUNT OF HER
     MAJESTY’S EXCHEQUER AT THE BANK OF ENGLAND, IN REPAYMENT
     THEREOF.—(PURSUANT TO ACT 7 WILL. 4, C. 9.)

    +-----+------------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
    |     | Amounts Advanced |Amounts Paid into|                       |
    |Date.|     from the     |the Exchequer, in|       Remarks.        |
    |     |   Consolidated   |  Repayment of   |                       |
    |     |       Fund.      |    Advances.    |                       |
    +-----+------------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
    |     |      £    _s. d._|     £    _s. d._|                       |
    |1837 |    22,000  0  0  |                 |                       |
    |1838 |   196,029 19  4  |  168,029 19  4  |                       |
    |1839 |   400,000  0  0  |  350,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1840 |   170,000  0  0  |  175,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1841 |   100,000  0  0  |  135,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1842 |   180,000  0  0  |  162,120  4  0  |                       |
    |1843 |   350,000  0  0  |  265,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1844 |   550,000  0  0  |  501,389 17  0  |                       |
    |1845 |   850,000  0  0  |  678,772  2  9  |                       |
    |1846 |   300,000  0  0  |  429,937  1 11  |                       |
    |1847 |   100,000  0  0  |  217,033 10  2  |                       |
    |1848 |                  |   18,534  3  1  |        As given       |
    |1849 |   150,000  0  0  |  120,000  0  0  |     in detail in      |
    |1850 |   150,000  0  0  |  120,000  0  0  |        previous       |
    |1851 |   100,000  0  0  |  187,213  1  1  |        Returns.       |
    |1852 |   391,970  0  8  |  191,970  0  8  |                       |
    |1853 |   508,029 19  4  |  550,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1854 |   100,000  0  0  |  200,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1855 |   250,000  0  0  |  300,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1856 |   450,000  0  0  |  450,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1857 |   420,000  0  0  |  350,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1858 |   400,000  0  0  |  400,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1859 |   550,000  0  0  |  650,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1860 |   270,000  0  0  |  150,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1861 |   400,000  0  0  |  550,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1862 |   400,000  0  0  |  350,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1863 |   250,000  0  0  |  250,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1864 |   600,000  0  0  |  630,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1865 |   520,000  0  0  |  460,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1866 |   410,000  0  0  |  510,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1867 |   300,000  0  0  |  250,000  0  0  |                       |
    |1868 |   220,000  0  0  |  200,000  0  0  |                       |
    +-----+------------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
    |  32 |10,058,029 19  4  |9,970,000  0  0  |_Loss_,                |
    |Years|                  |                 |=£88,029 19s. 4d. 17/6=|
    |     |                  |                 |_on the_ =£100=        |
    +-----+------------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
                   C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER OF THE MINT.
    ROYAL MINT, _18th February, 1870_.

profit, his total sum for all being 15_s._ for each £100 coined. Is it
probable that the contractor would tolerate a charge of 3_s._ 9¾_d._
for loss alone out of a total of 15_s._ Since the Government refuses
figures, imagination alone can tell what is the loss in the Royal Mint;
yet in the face of such facts Mr. Lowe accepts contracts as against
the French contractor to whom he sends Commissioners—one of whom
experienced “great difficulty in obtaining accurate information with
regard to the amount of loss that accrues” on gold and silver—that he
may instruct them in the cost of manufacture. Does a banker make known
his secrets? He may permit you to stand at his counter and see cheques
paid, but “thus far and no farther” is the guiding principle. Mr.
Lowe’s contract notions have been already noticed.

To return, then, to facts admitted by the Government, and presented
to the House of Lords in obedience to Lord Kinnaird’s motion; the
return numbered 30, 1870, clearly demonstrates that there is, under
the management of the present officers, and has been for the last five
years (see pages 144-145), an average loss by coining of £401, and
by melting, of £916, or a total of £1,317 on each million of silver
coined. By way of contrast, it should be noticed that this return
exhibits the fact that, when the Mint was under my management—between
April 1857 and March 1860—the total average loss, under circumstances
every way similar, was but £395 4_s._, inclusive of “melting and the
losing operations,” for each million of silver coined. Well may the
Government refuse a return which, at the smallest possible computation,
would EXHIBIT AN UNNECESSARY WASTE TO THE EXTENT OF £922 ON EACH
MILLION OF SILVER COINED, OR EXACTLY £3,144 ON THE SILVER CONCERNED IN
THE RETURN No. 157, 1869, quoted at page 149.

The unnecessary waste here displayed is not the only reason why silver
yields no final profit or seigniorage—and the foregoing statements
clearly demonstrate that Lord Kinnaird has not misunderstood the
accounts. The great reason of the loss occasioned by the silver
coinage, both by manufacture and by seigniorage, is want of knowledge
on the part of the Mint officials, for it can require but little
argument to show that that which costs 61_d._ and sells for 66_d._,
must, if properly manufactured, yield an absolute profit. So, to
demonstrate more clearly the exact case, we will take the real cost of
the silver for 1868 and see what profit this should have afforded, and
then Lord Lansdowne will perhaps explain why the loss arises, for this
return (see page 154) is perfectly free from all manufacturing details,
and does not include wages, officers’ salaries, or contingent expenses;
it simply states the bald fact that so much silver was bought and
converted into coined money, and by deducting one from the other there
is demonstrated an actual loss of £10,896 12_s._ Now the amount bought
was in real intrinsic value £312,252 12_s._, and this produced in
coined silver money £301,356. It has been shown in the return now under
comment that silver fetched at that period (1859-1868) 61⅜_d._ per
ounce, which, expressed in decimals, will be 61·375_d._, and silver,
by the Act of Parliament, is so coined as that each ounce is converted
into money of a nominal value of 66_d._, such extrinsic value being
given to silver because it is a token currency, and as such is a legal
tender to the limited extent of £2. The difference, then, between
66_d._ and 61·375_d._ is 4·625; if, therefore, 61·375 gives a profit
of 4·625, it follows that 100 should give 7·535; but for the sake of
simplicity we will consider this profit as at the rate of 7½ per cent.;
then £312,252 12_s._ at 7½ per cent., should yield £23,418 18_s._
10¾_d._, yet not only was the profit lost, but, in addition, there
is a recorded—admitted—loss of £10,896 12_s._, which, added to the
loss of profit, brings that total to £34,315 10_s._ 10¾_d._; but that
Lord Lansdowne may not be unfairly pressed, Lord Kinnaird expressed
willingness to deduct from this sum the amount of loss entailed that
year by recoinage (see * below) and which was £18,058 9_s._ 6_d._,
leaving thereby an irretrievable loss of exactly £16,257 1_s._ 4¾_d._,
on that year alone.

NO. 262.—RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
DATED 30TH MAY, 1870. (MR. AYRTON, PAGE 5.)

_Worn Silver Coin Purchased for Re-coinage._

    +----+-----------+-----------------+---------------+---------------+
    |Date|  Weight.  |  Nominal Value. |Mint Value at  |   Loss by     |
    |    |           |                 |5/6 per Ounce. |  Re-Coinage.  |
    +----+-----------+-----------------+---------------+---------------+
    |    |  Ounces.  |     £    _s. d._|   £    _s. d._|   £    _s. d._|
    |1860| 357902·538|  113,000  0  0  | 98,423  3  9  | 14,576 16  3  |
    |1861| 308873·077|   97,600  0  0  | 84,940  1 10  | 12,659 18  2  |
    |1862| 425591·682|  135,000  0  0  |117,037 14  3  | 17,962  5  9  |
    |1863| 324674·838|  102,800  0  0  | 89,285 11  5  | 13,514  8  7  |
    |1864| 388388·152|  123,500  0  0  |106,806 14 10  | 16,693  5  2  |
    |1865| 292496·983|   93,000  0  0  | 80,436 13  4  | 12,563  6  8  |
    |1866| 361280·187|  115,000  0  0  | 99,352  1  0  | 15,647 19  0  |
    |1867| 376142·927|  120,000  0  0  |103,439  6  0  | 16,560 14  0  |
    |1868| 388878·297|  125,000  0  0  |106,941 10  6  | 18,058  9  6  |
    |1869| 325976·928|  105,000  0  0  | 89,643 13  0  | 15,356  7  0  |
    +----+-----------+-----------------+---------------+---------------+
    |    |3550205·609|1,129,900  0  0  |976,306  9 11  |153,593 10  1  |
    +----+-----------+-----------------+---------------+---------------+

_The Yearly Average Price paid per Ounce for Silver Bullion purchased
in the Market for Coinage in the Years 1860 to 1869, both inclusive,
was as follows:—_

    +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
    |1860.|1861.|1862.|1863.|1864.|1865.|1866.|1867.|1868.| 1869. |
    +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
    | _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._|  _d._ |
    | 61¾ | 61½ | 61½ | 61½ | 61¼ | 61  | 61⅞ | 60¾ | 60⅞ | 60⁶/₁₆|
    +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+

_The amount of Seigniorage paid into the Exchequer in the years 1860 to
1869, has been,—_

    +--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
    |     1860.    |   1861.    |    1862.    |   1863.   |   1864.    |
    |              |            |             |           |            |
    +--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
    |  £   _s. d._ | £   _s. d._|  £   _s. d._| £  _s. d._| £   _s. d._|
    |27,134 1  8   |4,961 7  5  |11,227 6  2  |211 13  4  |6,160 6  8  |
    +--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
    +--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
    |    1865.     |    1866.    |    1867.    |    1868.    |
    |              |             |             |             |
    +--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
    |   £   _s. d._|  £   _s. d._|  £   _s. d._|  £   _s. d._|
    |57,645 17  9  |28,630 0  5  |4,331 10  7  |18,622 7  4  |
    +--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
    +--------------+----------------+
    |     1869.    |     Total.     |
    |              |    1860-69.    |
    +--------------+----------------+
    |  £   _s. d._ |    £    _s. d._|
    |12,345 4  10  | 171,269 16  2  |
    +--------------+----------------+
                       C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER OF THE MINT.
    ROYAL MINT, _31st. May, 1870._

Would Lord Lansdowne like to live on a _profit_ of such a description?
Should his lordship still maintain his statement that there is a gain
from seigniorage by coining silver, perhaps he will be so good as
to explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked last year for
£1,000 to “defray the anticipated loss,” as well as £15,000 to pay the
expenses of the recoinage, or “keeping the silver up to the required
standard.” It has been stated that this return is false—it is surely a
grave matter to make a false return to Parliament, in itself a crime
which should be inquired into and punished.

The loss thus exhibited is entailed solely because the Master of the
Mint habitually wishing to keep things quiet, refuses all Parliamentary
enquiry, and contents himself with so-called retrenchment because he
deducts £100 a year from the Mint workmen.

A continuation of the return to which Lord Kinnaird drew attention has
been presented, No. 262, 1869, signed by Mr. Fremantle. Singular to
relate, this is not merely _a continuation_, for it gives information
in regard to seigniorage, and Mr. Fremantle has amended the account
made by Mr. Graham; thus a return presented to Parliament has been
altered by Mr. Fremantle without comment, and now exhibits results
directly opposed to those shown for the same years by Mr. Graham. The
words at the head of the column are, for some reason which does not
appear, also altered, but the “real cost” of metal must mean the same
as the “total amount paid” for it. I have, therefore, compiled from
each a statement of the profit and loss; but I reproduce the figures
presented in the one case by Mr. Thomas Graham, and in the other by Mr.
C. W. Fremantle, BOTH RELATING TO THE SAME ACCOUNT, and both supposed
to be accurate (see page 154).

It is necessary that I should state that Mr. Graham had been dead
more than a year when his accounts were altered, in the manner now
to be explained. If _his_ returns were correct, Mr. Fremantle’s must
be _incorrect_, or, “adjusted,” as Mr. Roberts would style it. If
reference be made to the table on page 154, it will be seen that by
the return No. 157, Mr. Graham showed a loss to the extent of £5,373
4_s._ 6_d._ on nine years’ (1860-1868) silver coinage. Now, Lord
Kinnaird explained that return fully to the House, and, to prove his
accuracy, produced the return No. 30, which will be found on page 150.
Considerable astonishment was caused by such facts, but no reply was
given. However, it now appears by the return No. 262, which I print
under No. 157, and on the same page, that Mr. Fremantle has found the
means to convert Mr. Graham’s _loss_ into an absolute GAIN of so large
an amount as £1,011,668 2_s._ 0_d._, and _that without any word of
explanation_. The returns thus placed together are so contradictory,
that I confess I utterly failed to unravel them, and therefore
submitted them to more than one banker, several merchants, and,
finally, to a professional accountant, not one of whom could suggest a
key to the extraordinary process which has been adopted.

       NO. 157.—RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE THE
       HOUSE OF COMMONS, DATED 21ST APRIL, 1869, FOR ACCOUNT “OF
       ALL GOLD, SILVER, AND COPPER MONEYS OF THE REALM COINED AT
       THE MINT, FOR EACH YEAR FROM THE 1ST JANUARY, 1859, TO THE
       31ST OF DECEMBER, 1868, &C.,” IN CONTINUATION OF NO. 340,
       1867-68. (MR. AYRTON, PAGE 3.)

    ----+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------
    Date|  Total Value of |  Real Cost or   |  Profit on   |   Loss on
        |  Silver Coined. |  Value of Metal.|   Coinage.   |   Coinage.
    ----+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------
        |     £    _s. d._|      £   _s. d._|   £   _s. d._|  £    _s. d._
    1860|  218,403  7  0  |  222,981  1  6  |              | 4,577 14  6
    1861|  209,484  0  0  |  215,029  0 10  |              | 5,545 0  10
    1862|  148,518 11 10  |  159,948  2  6  |              |11,429 10  8
    1863|  161,172  0  0  |  171,855 15  0  |              |10,683 15  0
    1864|  535,194  0  0  |  521,003  5  0  |14,190 15   0 |
    1865|  501,732  0  0  |  483,861 13  6  |17,870  6   6 |
    1866|  493,416  0  0  |  486,113 15  2  | 7,302  4  10 |
    1867|  193,842  0  0  |  195,445 17 10  |              | 1,603 17 10
    1868|  301,356  0  0  |  312,252 12  0  |              |10,896 12  0
    ----+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------
        |2,763,117 18 10  |2,768,491  3  4  |39,363 6 4    |44,736 10 10
    ----+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------
     Deduct Profit, when there remains Absolute Loss         5,373  4  6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 THO. GRAHAM, MASTER OF THE MINT.
        ROYAL MINT, _19th April, 1869_.

NO. 262.—RETURN TO AN ORDER, &C., DATED 30TH MAY, 1870, &c., IN
CONTINUATION OF PAPER NO. 157, OF SESSION 1868-9. (MR. STANSFELD, PAGE
3.)

    +-------+-------------------+---------------------+
    | Date. |  Total Value of   | Total Amount Paid   |
    |       |  Silver Coined.   | for Silver Bullion. |
    +-------+-------------------+---------------------+
    |       |     £    _s.   d._|      £   _s.   d._  |
    | 1860  |  218,403   7   0  |   141,112  7  11    |
    | 1861  |  209,484   0   0  |   100,327 11   0    |
    | 1862  |  148,518  11  10  |    51,165 19  11    |
    | 1863  |  161,172   0   0  |    53,134 12   7    |
    | 1864  |  535,194   0   0  |   445,191 11   9    |
    | 1865  |  501,732   0   0  |   416,524  6   9    |
    | 1866  |  493,416   0   0  |   282,247 12   6    |
    | 1867  |  193,842   0   0  |   181,000 17  11    |
    | 1868  |  301,356   0   0  |    80,744 16   6    |
    | 1869  |   76,428   0   0  |   135,083  0  11    |
    +-------+-------------------+---------------------+
    |       |2,839,545  18  10  | 1,886,532 17   9    |
    +-------+-------------------+----------------------
    +-------+--------------------+------------------+
    | Date. |     Profit on      | Loss on Coinage. |
    |       |      Coinage.      |                  |
    +-------+--------------------+------------------+
    |       |      £   _s.  d._  |    £   _s.  d._  |
    | 1860  |    77,290 19  1    |                  |
    | 1861  |   109,156  9  0    |                  |
    | 1862  |    97,352 11 11    |                  |
    | 1863  |   108,037  7  5    |                  |
    | 1864  |    90,002  8  3    |                  |
    | 1865  |    85,207 13  3    |                  |
    | 1866  |   211,168  7  6    |                  |
    | 1867  |    12,841  2  1    |                  |
    | 1868  |   220,611  3  6    |                  |
    | 1869  |                    |  58,655 0  11    |
    +-------+--------------------+------------------+
    |       | 1,011,668  2 0 (‡‡)|  58,655 0  11    |
    +-------+--------------------+------------------+
    C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER OF THE MINT.
      ROYAL MINT, _31st May, 1870_.

The return contains another enigma. For, whereas Mr. Fremantle, on page
3 of the return in which he has amended Mr. Graham’s figures, exhibits
profit to the extent of £1,011,668 2_s._ 0_d._ in place of Mr. Graham’s
loss of £5,373 4_s._ 6_d._—but there being a loss of £58,655 0_s._
11_d._ on his own year’s coinage, the substituted profit(‡‡) must be
reduced by that amount, when it will be £953,013 1_s._ 1_d._ Again,
page 5, he gives a tabular statement (see page 152), by which he shows
that £171,269 16_s._ 2_d._ went to the Exchequer as seigniorage, while
the loss by recoinage amounted to £153,593 10_s._ 1_d._, leaving a
total profit of £17,676 6_s._ 1_d._ What has become of the difference
between this profit and that in the amended return?—a small matter
perhaps, but which yet amounts to £917,659 8_s._ 11_d._ in ten years.
If it were made it can be shown to have been legitimately disposed of,
or is it simply an “official statement,” such as those which public
companies have of late so frequently exhibited. If, however, that sum
has been realised, why does Mr. Fremantle show separately the amount of
seigniorage? There lies below a grave matter for inquiry why a Public
Department should place before Parliament an altered account without
one word of explanation. If Mr. Graham has put forward a false return,
one greatly against himself, it is right that the matter should be
investigated. If, on the other hand, Mr. Fremantle has placed figures
on paper which have no representatives in coin, it is indeed a grave
matter. In either case it goes to prove the necessity for a searching
inquiry into the affairs of the Royal Mint.

Lord Kinnaird does not stand alone in his view of the loss by the
silver coinage, for Mr. William Miller, late Chief Cashier in the
Bank of England, had, years since, arrived at the same conclusion,
and produced at that time evidence to prove his statement. By the
courtesy of Mr. George Forbes, at present Chief Cashier in the Bank of
England, I am in possession of Mr. Miller’s statement (see p. 156):
its perusal induces me to wish that Government officials would put
forward statements as lucid. Mr. William Miller, in this table, adopts
a process which I am assured is entirely legitimate, and by it educes
the fact that “_the Government owes the silver coinage a million and a
half, and not as an account_.” It is perfectly true that the profit,
if made, is not supposed to be placed at interest; but it is also the
fact that the profit _has never been realised_, hence the loss of both
capital and interest. His calculations are those of an accountant,
and by them he argues that if the £6,493,000 of silver coinage had
produced its legitimate gain, there would have accrued by it, and
the interest thereon, a sum of =£3,880,000= clear profit: he then
proceeds to show how that profit has been disposed of. Being himself
aware of the amount of loss by worn coins culled from circulation, he
states it at £255,000; and estimating the loss on that which remains
current, to be eliminated in its turn, at £910,000, shows a loss by
wear and tear of £1,165,000. The details for the complete study of this
table will be found in page 65, where every information is given in
precise figures, while in this he adopts whole numbers, and proceeds
to reason out the entire matter. That he may not press the Government,
he assumes an extreme rate for the expense of coinage—varying from 2¼
to 3½ per cent., while the real cost is about O·75 per cent.—and adds
to that amount the interest thereon, then deducting the total of these
sums from the £3,880,000 which should have arisen, he shows a balance
£1,411,000 which the Government owes to the silver coinage. While Mr.
Miller’s table on page 65 shows an average loss by wear on the silver
coinage current since 1816, at the rate of 24·31 per cent. in a hundred
years, and on that of George III.—_the most worn_—of 98·34 per cent.,
the Mint—receiving its culled coin from the Bank of England—states its
loss at the rate of 135·93 per cent. in the same period (see return, p.
152).

    THE GOVERNMENT IN ACCOUNT WITH THE SILVER COINAGE.

    COINED IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.:—
        Crowns                                    £322,000
        Half-Crowns                              2,387,000
        Shillings                                3,304,000
        Sixpences                                  919,000
                                                ----------
                                                £6,932,000
                                                ==========

Supposing the cost of the Silver to have been 5_s._ 1_d._ an ounce
in the new money, there would remain 5d. per ounce as profit to the
Government. That 5_d._ would be about 7·57 per Cent. on the amount
coined.

      7·57 per Cent. on £6,932,000       =    £525,000
      Compound Interest thereon at
       3½ per Cent. for 43 Years, the
        true Average Number of Years         1,779,000
        as nearly as can be made out         --------- 2,304,000

    COINED IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.:—
        Crowns                       141,000
        Half-Crowns                1,114,000
        Shillings                    879,000
        Sixpences                     81,000
                                  ----------
        7·57 per Cent. on         £2,215,000 = £168,000
                                  ==========
        Compound Interest at 3½ for 35 Years    392,000
                                               --------   560,000

    COINED IN THE REIGN OF WILLIAM IV.:—
        Half-Crowns                  381,000
        Shillings                    412,000
        Sixpences                    282,000
                                  ----------
        7·57 per Cent. on         £1,075,000 =  £81,000
                                      =========
        Compound Interest at 3½ for 15 years    111,000
                                                --------  192,000

    COINED IN THE REIGN OF VICTORIA:—
        Crowns                       117,000
        Half-Crowns                1,043,000
        Florins                    1,541,000
        Shillings                  2,610,000
        Sixpences                  1,182,000
                                  ----------
         7·57 per Cent. on        £6,493,000 = £492,000
                                  ==========
         Compound Interest at 3½ for 15 Years             332,000
                                                           ------
                                                                 824,000
                                                              ----------
                                                              £3,880,000
                                                              ==========

    LOSS BY WEAR:—
        On amount remaining in Circulation        £910,000
        Ditto withdrawn from Circulation           255,000
                                                  --------   £1,165,000

    EXPENSES OF COINAGE:—
        Crowns and Half-Crowns at         124,000
               2¼ per Cent.
        Shillings at                      205,000
               2·85 per Cent.                     -------
                                                   329,000
        Compound Interest thereon, 30 Years        594,000
        at 3½ per Cent.                           --------      923,000

        Sixpences at 3¼ per Cent.                   80,000
        Compound Interest thereon, 26 Years        116,000
        at 3¼ per Cent.                           --------      196,000

        Florins at 2½ per Cent.                     39,000
        Compound Interest thereon, 5 Years           5,000
        at 3¼ per Cent.                           --------       44,000

        7·57]per Cent. on the amount of Silver
        recoined at the Government’s expense       100,000
        (£1,316,500) Compound Interest,             41,000
         at 3½ per Cent. for Average of 10 Years  --------      141,000
                              Balance                         1,411,000
                                                             ----------
                                                             £3,880,000
                                                             ==========

          I communicate this Statement as my grounds
          for the Estimate that the Government owes the
          Silver Coinage a million and a half, and not
          as an Account.

    _December, 1860._                                W. MILLER.

It has been proposed to reap a harvest of profit from the silver
coinage, just as was done with the bronze coinage, but with this
difference—that whereas the old _copper_ pennies, when alloyed with
tin and zinc, made TWO BRONZE pennies, thus making the profit by a
diminution of weight, the present suggestion is to reduce the amount
of silver in the silver coinage, and so to get profit by converting
the old coinage into a new one of lower standard. So long as silver
is only a token it can make no difference in matter of fact whether
that token be intrinsically worth sixpence, eightpence, or tenpence,
so that it represents and is legally payable for the twentieth part
of a pound up to a fixed amount; but in another light the lowering of
the standard has a very material interest to the people, and in this
way. If those coinages which are made of different alloys from our own,
that is, in different proportions of silver and copper, be examined, it
will be found that none of them _wear_ so well as our own. Elaborate
experiments, carefully made, determined that silver, when alloyed with
copper in the proportion of 222 of the former to 18 of the latter,
formed the most fitting alloy. Tested by practice in the pocket,
those experiments are demonstrated to have been justly performed, and
that their results were accurate. It is worthy of remark, that in the
reign of Edward III. these proportions formed the _Old Standard_,
showing that long anterior to that period it had been used, although
no record is preserved. It is also certain that these same proportions
were used in many subsequent reigns, and we can but suppose that our
ancestors had their wise reasons for arriving at such a standard.
Indeed, Mr. Hatchett, in his elaborate experiments on gold and silver
coins, arrived at the conclusion that metal of medium ductility was
best fitted for the manufacture of coined money. He recommended the
preserving of the present standard for gold on that ground, and fails
to make any remarks as to silver; hence it may be fairly assumed that
he considered it the best for its purpose. It is, however, certain that
pure silver is too ductile, while silver alloyed with 20 per cent.
is really as ductile as pure silver, and in our present standard we
appear to have the medium impliedly recommended by Mr. Hatchett. The
old proportion was again adopted for our standard of silver coin when,
by the Act Geo. III. cap. 68, sec. 4, it was enacted that 66 shillings
shall be made from the pound troy of silver of the standard of 11 oz.
2 dwts. of fine silver and 18 dwts. of alloy. The alteration proposed
has varied from a mixture of 10 per cent. to one of 20 per cent. of
alloy. Now, one of these is a minute alteration, but in such matters
it is surprising to the uninitiated to find how small a variation of
proportion effects a great change in character; take, for instance,
the difference in qualities of steel, where the proportion best fitted
for each purpose must be used, or waste is incurred. In cases where
the metal is required for cutlery a different steel is selected from
that which is used for the manufacture of dies, and yet the difference
consists in a minute proportion of carbon, to be detected only by
analysis. So with the alloy of silver; and, if a profit be made by
reducing the proportion of silver, a greater loss will take place by
wear and tear, and the people pay for this, because the profit on a
silver coinage depends on the length of the period during which the
coins wear. Should a change be effected, it is to be hoped that it will
not be based on the series of experiments lately conducted in the Royal
Mint, and which were simply determinations of how much grinding each
alloy could bear under different circumstances, there being no doubt
that the proper mode is to let some thousands of coins be carried by
careful observers in their pockets in the ordinary mode of carrying
money, and at intervals to weigh those coins and see their loss, as
well as to examine them for their deterioration in an artistic point.
For it should not be forgotten that the act of coining is an important
act of Sovereignty, and should be properly performed, that the
Monarch may not appear to be held in light esteem. The ordinary wear
encountered in the use of coins by shopkeepers could also be tested
without risk or trouble. We as a people need not debase our coinage
simply for the sake of a first gain, for, if that be the object, the
Government might as well contract for advertisements, and thus make
profit; but it may fairly be doubted whether our shillings would be
improved in appearance if they were substituted for paving-stones,—the
late favourite medium for advertising. Yet, if gain alone is to be the
consideration, these points should be determined. It appears to be the
object of a coinage to make a medal which shall best encounter wear and
tear without loss or deterioration. This, we know, is best gained by
employing artists of the highest talent, and coiners who know how to
give effect to the artist’s intention. It is almost indisputably the
fact that this has never been so well performed as in the shillings
of William Wyon, designed after the bust by Chantry, and which coins,
to this day, far surpass those of subsequent coinages in every way.
The remarks of Mr. Pepys seem to be quite fitting if applied to our
present coinage, and demonstrate how truthfully it has been said that
history reproduces itself; for on Feb. 20, 1660, he says:—“... where
we met with Mr. Slingsby, who showed me the stamps of the King’s new
coyne; which is strange to see, how good they are in the stamp, and
bad in the money for lack of skill to make them. But he says Blondeau
will shortly come over, and then we shall have it better, and the best
in the world.” The protecting edge should be raised and thick, and the
work of the die well sunk, as then by friction less surface is exposed,
and the coin would not only last longer in circulation, but would
during its whole existence carry the image and superscription. While
this improvement should be effected, the note of Mr. Pepys, on the
23rd November, 1663, should not be forgotten, for he says, with great
point:—“... with Alderman Backewell talking of the new money, which
he says will never be counterfeited, he believes; but it is so deadly
inconvenient for telling, it is so thick, and the edges are made to
turn up.” Mr. Backewell had become accustomed to the _hammered_ money,
and felt the thickness of the _milled_; but we have found the advantage
of the milled money, and do not like it when, after a short existence,
it becomes as thin as the hammered money was. The protecting edge not
only protects the design on the coin, but it also makes the coin more
difficult of bending, and bent coins are troublesome.

In former reigns unwise counsels have prevailed, and the coinages have
been tampered with; but the invariable event has been disaster, as
has been clearly shown by Mr. Lowndes, who says:—“Although the former
debasements of coins by public authority, especially those in the
reigns of King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth, might be
projected for the profit of the Crown, and the projectors might measure
that profit by the excessive quantities of alloy that were mixed with
the silver or gold, and although this was enterprised by a Prince who
could stretch his prerogative very far upon his people, and was done
in times when this nation had very little commerce, inland or foreign,
to be injured or prejudiced thereby, yet experience presently showed
that the projectors were mistaken, and that it was absolutely necessary
to have the base moneys reformed; the doing whereof was begun by King
Edward the Sixth himself, carried on by King Philip and Queen Mary,
and happily finished (though not without great charge, vexation, and
trouble, the only offspring of such designs) by Queen Elizabeth, who
(as is noted above) in the third year of her reign, when money was not
plentiful, erected a distinct Mint in the Tower to convert the base
(not counterfeit money) into sterling;” and continuing, he says:—

“Thirdly. Because making of base money will disgrace this Government
in future generations, the critics in every age being apt to estimate
the goodness or badness of ancient Governments by their coin, as hath
been done, especially in the case of the Romans, and a temptation of
this kind ought not to be left for future ages, to the prejudice of the
honour of the present King.”

Surely, with such experience before him, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer cannot wish to persevere with his proposal—which can hardly
be called original—to debase our gold coinage, when such a measure has
been so deliberately condemned by experience in former periods.

STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMED IN THE COINING DEPARTMENT BETWEEN OCTOBER
1ST, 1857, AND MARCH 31ST, 1858, INCLUSIVE.

The Coinage was completed in 63 Days. The Value of the coined Silver
was £234177·96875.

                         IN ROLLING ROOM.
    +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
    |         RECEIVED.         |          RETURNED.                   |
    +---------------------------+---------------+-----------+----------+
    |                           |                |  As by    | As by   |
    |                           |                | Rolling   |  Mint   |
    |                           |                |  Room     | Office  |
    |                           |                |  Beam.    |  Beam.  |
    +---------------------------+----------------+-----------+---------+
    |    Bars for Florins.      |                |           |         |
    |                    Ounces.|                |  Ounces.  | Ounces. |
    |  As by Mint    }          |                |           |         |
    | Office Beam.   } 761202·00| Florin Fillets | 728342·56 |         |
    |                           |                |           |         |
    | As by Rolling  } 761212·67|   ”    Ends    |  32956·95 | 32956·90|
    | Room Beam.     }          |                |           |         |
    |                  ---------+                +-----------+         |
    |Showing a plus  }          |   Deduct      }|           |         |
    |   difference.  }     10·67| “received.”   }| 761299·51 |         |
    |                           |                +-----------+         |
    |                           |   Increase    }|           |         |
    |    Bars for Shillings.    | during work.  }|     86·84 |         |
    |                    Ounces.|                |           |         |
    |  As by Mint    }          |                |           |         |
    | Office Beam.   } 528613·00|Shilling Fillets| 504599·40 |         |
    |                           |                |           |         |
    |  As by Rolling }          |                |           |         |
    |  Room Beam.    } 528617·25|     ”    Ends  |  24081·80 | 24081·91|
    |                  ---------+                +-----------+         |
    |Showing a plus  }          |   Deduct      }|           |         |
    |  difference.   }      4·25| “received.”   }| 528681·20 |         |
    |                           |                +-----------+         |
    |                           |   Increase    }|           |         |
    |    Bars for Sixpences.    | during work.  }|     63·95 |         |
    |                                            |           |         |
    |                    Ounces.|                |           |         |
    |   As by Mint   }          |                |           |         |
    |  Office Beam.  } 175644·00|Sixpenny Fillets| 168666·70 |         |
    |                           |                |           |         |
    |  As by Rolling }          |                |           |         |
    |   Room Beam.   } 175644·54|     ”    Ends  |   7003·10 |  7003·07|
    |                  ---------+                +-----------+         |
    |Showing a plus  }          |   Deduct      }|           |         |
    |  difference.   }      0·54| “received.”   }|175669·80  |         |
    |                           |                +-----------+         |
    |                           |   Increase    }|           |         |
    |  Bars for Threepences.    | during work.  }|     24·26 |         |
    |                    Ounces.|                |           |         |
    | As by Mint     }          | Threepenny    }|           |         |
    |  Office Beam.  }  33643·00|   Fillets.    }|  32661·25 |         |
    |                           |                |           |         |
    | As by Rolling  }          | Threepenny    }|           |         |
    |  Room Beam.    }  33642·20|    Ends.      }|    987·55 |   987·55|
    |                  ---------+                +-----------+---------+
    |Showing a minus }          |   Deduct      }|           |         |
    |  difference.   }      0·80| “Received.”   }|  33648·80 |         |
    |                           |                +-----------+         |
    |                           |   Increase    }|           |         |
    |                           | during work.  }|      6·60 | 65029·43|
    +---------------------------+----------------+-----------+---------+

                             IN CUTTING ROOM.
    -----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
                RECEIVED.        |            RETURNED.                |
    -----------------------------+----------------+----------+---------+
                                 |                |  As by   |  As by  |
                                 |                | Cutting  |   Mint  |
                                 |                |  Room    |  Office |
                                 |                |  Beam.   |   Beam. |
    -----------------------------+----------------+----------+---------+
         Fillets for Florins.    |                |          |         |
                        Ounces.  |                | Ounces.  | Ounces. |
     As by Rolling }             |                |          |         |
       Room Beam.  }    728342·56| Florin Blanks  |433013·65 |         |
                                 |                |          |         |
     As by Cutting }             |                |          |         |
       Room Beam.  }    728339·29|   ”    Scissel |295327·34 |295327·98|
                       ----------|                |----------|         |
    Showing a minus}             |    Deduct     }|          |         |
      difference.  }         3·27|  “received.”  }|728340·99 |         |
                                 |                |----------|         |
                                 |   Increase    }|          |         |
        Fillets for Shillings.   | during work.  }|     1·70 |         |
                                 |                |          |         |
                        Ounces.  |                |          |         |
     As by Rolling }             |                |          |         |
       Room Beam.  }    504599·40| Shilling Blanks|320518·84 |         |
                                 |                |          |         |
     As by Cutting }             |                |          |         |
       Room Beam.  }    504598·71|    ”    Scissel|184117·20 |184117·20|
                       ----------|                |----------|         |
    Showing a minus}             |    Deduct     }|          |         |
      difference.  }         0·69|  “received.”  }|504636·04 |         |
                                 |                |----------|         |
                                 |   Increase    }|          |         |
        Fillets for Sixpences.   | during work.  }|    37·33 |         |
                                 |                |          |         |
                        Ounces.  |                |          |         |
     As by Rolling }             |   Sixpenny    }|          |         |
       Room Beam.  }    168666·70|    Blanks.    }|101407·09 |         |
                                 |                |          |         |
     As by Cutting }             |   Sixpenny    }|          |         |
       Room Beam.  }    168666·25|   Scissel.    }| 67271·99 | 67271·99|
                       ----------|                |----------|         |
    Showing a minus}             |    Deduct     }|          |         |
      difference.  }         0·45|  “received.”  }|168679·08 |         |
                                 |                |----------|         |
                                 |   Increase    }|          |         |
       Fillets for Threepences.  | during work.  }|    12·83 |         |
                                 |                |          |         |
                        Ounces.  |                |          |         |
     As by Rolling }             |  Threepenny   }|          |         |
       Room Beam.  }    32661·25 |    Blanks.    }| 19373·13 |         |
                                 |                |          |         |
     As by Cutting }             |  Threepenny   }|          |         |
       Room Beam.  }    32661·25 |   Scissel.    }| 13293·73 | 13293·73|
                       --------- |                |----------|---------|
       Showing no  }             |    Deduct     }|          |         |
      difference.  }        0·00 |  “received.”  }| 32666·86 |         |
                                 |                |----------|         |
                                 |   Increase    }|          |         |
                                 | during work.  }|     5·61 |560010·90|
    -----------------------------+----------------+----------+---------+

                          IN WEIGHING ROOM.
    +----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
    |           RECEIVED.        |            RETURNED.                |
    +----------------------------+----------------+-----------+--------+
    |                            |                |   As by   | As by  |
    |                            |                |  Weighing | Mint   |
    |                            |                |    Room   |Office  |
    |                            |                |   Beam.   |Beam.   |
    +----------------------------+----------------+-----------+--------+
    |     Blanks for Florins.    |                |           |        |
    |                            |                |           |        |
    |                   Ounces.  |                |  Ounces.  | Ounces.|
    |  As by Cutting }           |                |           |        |
    |  Room Beam.    } 433013·65 |Florin Blanks.  | 423988·43 |        |
    |                            |                |           |        |
    |As by Weighing  }           |                |           |        |
    |  Room Beam.    } 433010·55 |Florin Rejected.|   9020·63 | 9020·63|
    |                  --------- +                +-----------+        |
    |Showing a minus }           |    Deduct    } |           |        |
    |  difference.   }      3·10 |  “received.” } | 433009·06 |        |
    |                            |                +-----------+        |
    |                            |  Loss during } |           |        |
    |    Blanks for Shillings.   |     work.    } |      1·49 |        |
    |                            |                |           |        |
    |                   Ounces.  |                |           |        |
    |  As by Cutting             |                |           |        |
    |  Room Beam.    } 320518·84 |Shilling Blanks.| 315492·95 |        |
    |                            |                |           |        |
    |As by Weighing  }           |   Shilling   } |           |        |
    |  Room Beam.    } 320516·07 |   Rejected.  } |   5021·79 | 5021·79|
    |                  --------- +                +-----------+        |
    |Showing a minus }           |    Deduct    } |           |        |
    |  difference.   }      2·77 |  “received.” } | 320514·74 |        |
    |                            |                +-----------+        |
    |                            |  Loss during } |           |        |
    |    Blanks for Sixpences.   |     work.    } |      1·33 |        |
    |                            |                |           |        |
    |                   Ounces.  |                |           |        |
    |  As by Cutting }           |   Sixpenny   } |           |        |
    |  Room Beam.    } 101407·09 |    Blanks.   } |  99083·98 |        |
    |                            |                |           |        |
    |As by Weighing  }           |   Sixpenny   } |           |        |
    |  Room Beam.    } 101406·65 |   Rejected.  } |   2223·63 | 2223·63|
    |                  --------- +                +-----------+        |
    |Showing a minus }           |    Deduct    } |           |        |
    |  difference.   }      0·44 |  “received.” } | 101407·61 |        |
    |                            |                +-----------+        |
    |                            |    Increase  } |           |        |
    |   Blanks for Threepences.  |  during work.} |      0·96 |        |
    |                            |                |           |        |
    |                   Ounces.  |                |           |        |
    |  As by Cutting }           |  Threepenny  } |           |        |
    |  Room Beam.    }  19373·13 |    Blanks.   } |  19326·87 |        |
    |                            |                |           |        |
    |As by Weighing  }           |  Threepenny  } |           |        |
    |  Room Beam.    }  19372·96 |   Rejected.  } |     46·03 |   46·03|
    |                  --------- +                +-----------+--------+
    |Showing a minus }           |    Deduct    } |           |        |
    |  difference.   }      0·17 |  “received.” } |  19372·90 |        |
    |                            |                +-----------+        |
    |                            |  Loss during } |           |        |
    |                            |     work.    } |      0·06 |16312·08|
    +----------------------------+----------------+-----------+--------+


                            IN ANNEALING ROOM.
    +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
    |          RECEIVED.        |            RETURNED.                 |
    +---------------------------+---------------+-----------+----------+
    |                           |               |   As by   |  As by   |
    |                           |               | Annealing |   Mint   |
    |                           |               |   Room    |  Office  |
    |                           |               |   Beam.   |  Beam.   |
    +---------------------------+---------------+-----------+----------+
    |    Blanks for Florins.    |               |           |          |
    |                           |               |           |          |
    |                  Ounces.  |               |  Ounces.  | Ounces.  |
    |As by Weighing }           |               |           |          |
    |  Room Beam.   } 423988·43 | Florin Blanks | 423606·37 |          |
    |                           |               |           |          |
    |                           |     Loss of  }|           |          |
    |As by Annealing}           |   Weight by  }|           |          |
    |  Room Beam.   } 423984·25 | Annealing and}|    367·84 |          |
    |                -----------+   Blanching. }|           |          |
    |                           |               +-----------+          |
    |Showing a minus}           |   Deduct     }|           |          |
    |  difference.  }      4·18 | “received.”  }| 423974·21 |          |
    |                           |               +-----------+          |
    |                           | Loss          |     10·04 |          |
    |    Blanks for Shillings.  |               |           |          |
    |                           |               |           |          |
    |                  Ounces.  |               |           |          |
    |As by Weighing }           |               |           |          |
    |  Room Beam.   } 315492·95 |Shilling Blanks| 315190·47 |          |
    |                           |               |           |          |
    |                           |     Loss of  }|           |          |
    |As by Annealing}           |   Weight by  }|           |          |
    |  Room Beam.   } 315490·42 | Annealing and}|    283·86 |          |
    |                -----------+   Blanching. }|           |          |
    |                           |               +-----------+          |
    |Showing a minus}      2·53 |   Deduct     }| 315474·33 |          |
    |  difference.  }           | “received.”  }|           |          |
    |                           |               +-----------+          |
    |                           | Loss          |     16·09 |          |
    |    Blanks for Sixpences.  |               |           |          |
    |                           |               |           |          |
    |                  Ounces.  |               |           |          |
    |As by Weighing }           |   Sixpenny   }|           |          |
    |  Room Beam.   }  99083·98 |     Blanks.  }|  98980·28 |          |
    |                           |               |           |          |
    |                           |     Loss of  }|           |          |
    |As by Annealing}           |   Weight by  }|           |          |
    |  Room Beam.   }  99083·67 | Annealing and}|    103·39 |          |
    |                -----------+   Blanching. }|           |          |
    |                           |               +-----------+          |
    |Showing a minus}           |   Deduct     }|           |          |
    |  difference.  }      0·31 | “received.”  }|  99083·67 |          |
    |                           |               +-----------+          |
    |                           | Loss          |      0·00 |          |
    |    Blanks for Threepence. |               |           |          |
    |                           |               |           |          |
    |                  Ounces.  |               |           |          |
    |As by Weighing }           |   Threepenny }|           |          |
    |  Room Beam.   }  19326·87 |     Blanks.  }|  19304·08 |Supply.[123]|
    |                           |               |           |          |
    |                           |     Loss of  }|           |          |
    |As by Annealing}           |   Weight by  }|           |          |
    |  Room Beam.   }  19326·72 | Annealing and}|     22·64 |    47·67 |
    |                -----------+   Blanching. }|           |          |
    |                           |               +-----------+          |
    |Showing a minus}           |   Deduct     }|           |          |
    |  difference.  }      0·15 | “received.”  }|  19326·72 |          |
    |                           |               +-----------+----------+
    |                           | Loss          |      0·00 |    47·67 |
    +---------------------------+---------------+-----------+----------+

[Footnote 123: See page 162.]

                               IN PRESS ROOM.
    +---------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
    |        RECEIVED.          |               RETURNED.                 |
    +---------------------------+-----------------+----------+---------+
    |                           |                 | As by    | As by   |
    |                           |                 | Press    | Mint    |
    |                           |                 | Room     | Office  |
    |                           |                 | Beam.    | Beam.   |
    +---------------------------+-----------------+----------+---------+
    |    Blanks for Florins.    |                 |          |         |
    |                           |                 |          |         |
    |                  Ounces.  |                 |  Ounces. |  Ounces.|
    |As by Annealing}           |                 |          |         |
    |  Room Beam.   } 423606·37 |Florin Coin      |420367·28 |420278·40|
    |                           |                 |          |         |
    |As by Press    }           |                 |          |         |
    |  Room Beam.   } 423606·37 |Florin Brockages.|  2951·76 |  3069·61|
    |                -----------+                 |          |         |
    |Showing no     }           |  Florin Pyx    }|          |         |
    |  difference.  }      0·00 |    Pieces.     }|   283·86 |   283·86|
    |                           |                 +----------+         |
    |                           |    Deduct      }|          |         |
    |                           |  “received.”   }|423602·90 |         |
    |                           |                 +----------+         |
    |                           |Loss             |     3·47 |         |
    |    Blanks for Shillings.  |                 |          |         |
    |                           |                 |          |         |
    |                  Ounces.  |                 |          |         |
    |As by Annealing}           |                 |          |         |
    |  Room Beam.   } 315190·47 |  Shilling Coin  |313853·64 |313847·00|
    |                           |                 |          |         |
    |As by Press    }           |  Shilling      }|          |         |
    |  Room Beam.   } 315190·47 |  Brockages.    }|  1227·88 |  1228·17|
    |                -----------+                 |          |         |
    |Showing no     }           |  Shilling Pyx  }|          |         |
    |  difference.  }      0·00 |    Pieces.     }|   107·87 |   107·87|
    |                           |                 +----------+         |
    |                           |    Deduct      }|          |         |
    |                           |  “received.”   }|315189·39 |         |
    |                           |                 +----------+         |
    |                           |Loss             |     1.08 |         |
    |    Blanks for Sixpences.  |                 |          |         |
    |                           |                 |          |         |
    |                  Ounces.  |                 |          |         |
    |As by Annealing}           |                 |          |         |
    |  Room Beam.   }  98980·28 |  Sixpenny Coin  | 98279·81 | 98271·65|
    |                           |                 |          |         |
    |As by Press    }           |  Sixpenny      }|          |         |
    |  Room Beam.   }  98980·28 |  Brockages.    }|   678·84 |   678·84|
    |                -----------+                 |          |         |
    |Showing no     }           |  Sixpenny Pyx  }|          |         |
    |  difference.  }      0·00 |    Pieces.     }|    21·18 |    21·18|
    |                           |                 +----------+         |
    |                           |    Deduct      }|          |         |
    |                           |  “received.”   }| 98979·83 |         |
    |                           |                 +----------+         |
    |                           |Loss             |     0·45 |         |
    |  Blanks for Threepences.  |                 |          |         |
    |                           |                 |          |         |
    |                  Ounces.  |                 |          |         |
    |As by Annealing}           |  Threepenny    }|          |         |
    |  Room Beam.   }  19304·08 |    Coin.       }| 19145·45 | 19159·20|
    |                           |                 |          |         |
    |As by Press    }           |  Threepenny    }|          |         |
    |  Room Beam.   }  19304·08 |  Brockages.    }|   154·85 |   154·85|
    |                -----------+                 |          |         |
    |Showing no     }           |  Threepenny    }|          |         |
    |  difference.  }      0·00 |  Pyx Pieces.   }|     3·02 |     3·02|
    |                           |                 +----------+         |
    |                           |  Deduct        }|          |         |
    |                           |  “received.”   }| 19303·32 |         |
    |                           |                 +----------+---------+
    |                           |Loss             |     0·76 |857103·65|
    +---------------------------+-----------------+----------+---------+

                                        Ounces.
    Total received from Mint Office   1499104·00
      ”   returned to     ”     ”     1498503·73
                                      ----------
    Loss                                  600·27
                                      ==========

    The proportional loss on this coinage was 0·199 ounces on each 500
    ounces coined, instead of 1 in 500 as the Master had expected must
    be the case.

      The mean rate of
    The Ends was             3·94 per cent. on the Rough Bars.
     ”  Scissel was         37·85     ”     ”        ”
     ”  Rejected Blanks was  0·89     ”     ”        ”
     ”  Brockages was        0·38     ”     ”        ”
     ”  Coined Money was    56.87     ”     ”        ”
     ”  Coined Money was    59·22     ”     ”     Clean Bars

                  WAGES PAID TO WORKMEN BY PIECE-WORK SCALE.
    +-------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    |                   | Florins.| Shillings.| Sixpences.|Threepences.|
    +-------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    | For Melting       |   13·215|    9·176  |    3·079  |     0·584  |
    |  ”  Rolling       |   45·521|   42·045  |   28·111  |     8·165  |
    |  ”  Cutting       |   44·165|   46·008  |   28·899  |     8·052  |
    |  ”  Annealing     |   35·300|   45·965  |   28·869  |    11·260  |
    |  ”  Coining       |   29·192|   39·231  |   24·570  |     9·572  |
    +-------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    | Total wages paid  | £167·393| £182·425  | £113·528  |   £37·633  |
    +-------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    | Rate paid for each|         |           |           |            |
    |  100 lbs. troy of |   £0·475|   £0·697  |   £1·386  |    £2·358  |
    |  Coined Money.    |         |           |           |            |
    +-------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+

    +------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
    |                        | Rate per cent. of  | Rate per cent. of |
    |                        | Coined Money from  | Coined Money from |
    |                        |    Rough Bars.     |    Clean Bars.    |
    +------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
    | Florins                |       55·26        |       57·76       |
    | Shillings              |       59·38        |       62·22       |
    | Sixpences              |       55·96        |       58·29       |
    +------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
    |                                                                 |
    | _To the_ MASTER OF THE MINT.                                    |
    |                                          GEORGE F. ANSELL.      |
    | _May 6th 1858._                                                 |
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+

It would appear necessary that I should now give[124] a copy of one
of the reports I made to the Master, showing for silver a similarly
detailed history of its manipulation to that which was given for gold
(see page 92); and as that was fully explained, it is felt unnecessary
to say more of this report than to point out that the blanks are
simply stamped in the press room, and that as this operation produces
no alteration of weight, the losses recorded were due to abstractions
of coined money, and were reported to the Master as such, while the
loss exhibited in the annealing room was also due to the same cause.
The loss which appears to have arisen in the weighing room arises from
another cause. The blanks when operated upon lose little splinters of
metal, which are preserved, and at the end of the coinage go to a fund
of odd pieces, which are melted; and the ingot produced is assayed, its
estimated amount of silver is determined, and this is called _supply_,
and will be seen to be 47·67 ounces for the whole department, although
it appears in the annealing room account, because it is usually cleaned
in that room.

[Footnote 124: See pages 89, 160-161.]

As regards the accounts for the rolling and cutting rooms, it would
be a source of interest to the curious could they but examine the
books and compare them for periods previously to and after 1857, when
it would be demonstrated that nearly the whole of the losses above
explained took place in those rooms. I stopped these _evaporations_,
and removed the word _loss_ which was habitually printed at the foot
of each day’s account, replacing it by the word GAIN, because that
significant word expressed what should have happened, and that which
under me did really take place in these rooms.

It is remarkable, but even in so simple a matter as the bronze coinage
there also arises a large loss—that is, a great part of the profit is
lost. I therefore propose to say a few words upon this subject, and
see if reason will confirm the facts of experience. The average value
of copper is about £100 a ton, and this may be assumed as the average
price of bronze in ingots. It is perfectly well understood that bronze
and copper coins are both accepted as token money; but some amongst us
may remember when copper pennies were so coined as that each penny was
intrinsically worth that sum, the intention being that any customer
could check the honesty of the shopkeeper when he bought an ounce of
tea or tobacco, by placing his “cart-wheel-penny” against the commodity
still in the scale. Experience, however, demonstrated that this was
not a right footing for a subservient coinage. It was found that when
copper in the market fluctuated to a price beyond 1_d._ per ounce, this
coinage was collected and melted. Therefore it was determined to make
the intrinsic far below the extrinsic value, and then to limit the
legal tender to 2_s._ in nominal value in copper money.

In 1860 the copper token money was replaced by bronze token money, and
the weight of this was still farther reduced, so that the intrinsic
value of a penny became as nearly as possible one farthing—that is to
say, a farthing’s worth of copper or bronze had given to it in the act
of coining an extrinsic value equal to a penny, by which a profit of
300 per cent. would appear to be realised. But since some of the bronze
is coined into pence, halfpence, and farthings, and these vary in
their proportional intrinsic value, it is felt to be fair to give the
Government every possible latitude, because Lord Kinnaird evidently
accepted those facts when he made his speech in the House of Lords.

Bronze costs £100 a ton, and a ton of bronze is, on an average,
converted into £358 when coined—that is to say, £100 intrinsic value
receives by the act of coining an extrinsic value equal to £358, and
so yields a profit of £258. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer last
year asked for, and obtained, £1,000 _to defray the loss on bronze_,
the fact being that on the value coined—£10,010—there should have been
a clear profit of £25,825. And it so happens that, by the return No.
157, 1869, a profit is admitted to the modest extent of £6,318 0_s._
2_d._ Why was the £1,000 asked for, and what became of the £6,318 0_s._
2_d._? and further, why was that modest sum allowed to take the place
of the proper profit, or £25,825?

The return above quoted, No. 157, 1869, shows that in the nine years,
1860-1868, the purchase value of copper bought for coinage was
£489,071, and the same return shows that this intrinsic value was
converted into money of the nominal value of £991,833; therefore,
by deducting the cost from that sum, there appears a clear profit
of £502,762 on bronze since 1860, which is at the moderate rate of
£102 per cent. on the outlay. It will be well to investigate farther,
and perhaps to take the contract given to Messrs. James Watt and Co.
for 1,720 tons in 1860. The sum paid to that firm, added to the cost
of copper supplied to them for the manufacture of bronze to produce
1,720 tons of coin, was £229,200; and the 1,720 tons of bronze money
forwarded to the Mint by the terms of that contract was, in nominal
value, when delivered, £696,293, so that the profit on that one
transaction was £467,093, or at the rate of £203 per cent. on the
outlay. The last coin (a penny) to complete this contract was struck by
Messrs. Watt at 9 A.M. on Thursday, the 11th of June, 1863; so that the
coinage, which has been conducted since that period, has been struck
under the superintendence of the present Mint officials. The return
No. 157, 1869, shows that, at the period when the Mint was receiving
bronze coin from the contractors, and was at the same time coining
bronze—viz., from 1860-1863, the profit was diluted from 258 to 108 per
cent.; but when the Mint took the whole manufacture from 1864 to 1868,
under Mr. John Graham alone, that profit was further lessened to 78·70
per cent., or rather less than £78 15_s._ was made where £258 should
have been made.

The Mint officials may, and probably will, plead that this return, as
well as that relating to silver, is “false;” still they must stand
or fall by their own figures, or issue intelligible and trustworthy
returns to the orders of the House of Commons; and these exhibit the
fact that Messrs. Watt’s contract gave a profit of 203 per cent.;
the Mint and Messrs. Watt’s contract jointly of 108 per cent.; the
Mint solely, of only 78¾ per cent. It will probably be asserted that
the purchase of the old copper money caused the apparent loss; but
this argument will be disposed of if we take the case of 1863, up
to which period 1,651 tons 8 cwts. 2 qrs. 27¾ lbs.; of worn copper
coin had been purchased at an absolute cost of £234·80 per ton. To
assume then that this was the cause for diminished profit, let us
see if it can be proved to demonstration. I have shown that a ton of
bronze money is worth £358, and a ton of copper, when bought as old
coin, £234·80; therefore, the copper so bought should yield profit of
about £152·50 per centum. But it should do more than this; for I, of
my own knowledge,—because I ordered it,—state that bronze was bought
to a considerable amount at the then current rate of new copper. The
following, however, is the worst that could happen:—If the whole of
the old copper cost £234·80 per ton, when converted into bronze money,
it would produce £358, or equal to £152·5 per cent. profit. Upon what
ground then can the profit—when new copper at the lower price is
bought—be reduced so low as to 108 per cent., and then fall to £78·70
per cent. on the copper purchased? Were any prosecutions made, or
were men simply told their “services were no longer required?” If the
accounts were investigated by a professional accountant, what amount of
loss in weight—in addition to the loss by dirt which amounted to 0·41
per cent. on each ton melted—would be shown when they were balanced?
Another curious inquiry might be made:—At what rate for labour was
bronze money coined in the Royal Mint after the cessation of the
contract? It might be found to be exorbitant.

Since, however, Lord Kinnaird directed attention to this subject,
Mr. Fremantle has adjusted the return No. 157, as regards bronze, in
a manner similar to, yet differing from, that relating to silver. I
propose to insert copies of these returns, following the arrangement
adopted for those relating to silver; and it will be seen that whereas
Mr. Graham showed a profit of £502,761 11_s._ 11_d._ between the years
1860-68, _without an instance of loss_, Mr. Fremantle not only alters
all the figures relating to the copper purchased, but reduces Mr.
Graham’s profit to £403,376 18_s._ 6_d._ and shows _a loss_ in 1864 to
the extent of £31,896 13_s._ 4_d._; which sum, deducted from £435,273
11_s._ 10_d._, yields the profit Mr. Fremantle is willing to admit.
I am fully aware that “figures may be made to tell anything;” but
until the year 1870 I was not aware that Parliament would permit its
returns to be altered, amended, or adjusted without leave or a word of
explanation. Surely such an occurrence, added to evidence previously
adduced, will cause some independent member to “tackle” even Mr. Lowe
in the House of Commons. Why Mr. Fremantle, in the case of silver,
converts loss into profit, and in that of bronze reduces, apparently
without reason, the amount of profit, should be explained. I have done
my share in calling attention to the facts. It should be pointed out
that the figures relating to 1869 in the following return are inserted,
but not demonstrated, because I wish to mark emphatically the fact
that it is Mr. Graham’s figures alone which are made to perform these
operations, while those of Mr. Fremantle yield a profit of £12,476
4_s._ 6_d._, or at the rate of £137·35 per centum on the copper
purchased.


     NO. 157.—RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE THE HOUSE
     OF COMMONS, DATED 21ST APRIL, 1869, FOR ACCOUNT “OF ALL GOLD,
     SILVER, AND COPPER MONEYS OF THE REALM COINED AT THE MINT, FOR
     EACH YEAR FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1859, TO THE 31ST DAY OF
     DECEMBER, 1868, &C.,” IN CONTINUATION OF NO. 340, 1857-68. (MR.
     AYRTON, PAGE 4.)

    +--------+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
    | Date.  |Total Value of |Purchase Value|  Profit on   | Loss on   |
    |        |Copper Coined. | of Copper.   |  Coinage.    | Coinage.  |
    +--------+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
    | 1860:  |    £   _s. d._|    £  _s. d._|    £  _s. d._| £  _s. d._|
    |Copper  |    134  8  0  |              |              |           |
    |Bronze  | 37,856  0  0  |  9,185  2 11 | 28,805  5  1 |           |
    +--------+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
    | Bronze:|               |              |              |           |
    | 1861   |273,578 13  4  | 96,735  6  8 |176,843  6  8 |           |
    | 1862   |352,800  0  0  |203,389  0  0 |149,411  0  0 |           |
    | 1863   |151,648  0  0  | 82,482  0  0 | 69,166  0  0 |           |
    | 1864   | 18,069  6  8  |  9,660  0  0 |  8,409  6  8 |           |
    | 1865   | 57,493  6  8  | 31,740  0  0 | 25,753  6  8 |           |
    | 1866   | 50,624  0  0  | 26,910  0  0 | 23,714  0  0 |           |
    | 1867   | 33,301  6  8  | 18,960  0  0 | 14,341  6  8 |           |
    | 1868   | 16,328  0  2  | 10,010  0  0 |  6,318  0  2 |           |
    |        +---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
    |        |991,833  1  6  |489,071  9  7 |502,761 11 11 |           |
    +--------+---------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
                               THOS. GRAHAM, MASTER OF THE MINT.
     ROYAL MINT, _19th April, 1869_.

      NO. 262.—RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF
      COMMONS, DATED 30TH MAY, 1870, IN CONTINUATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
      PAPER, NO. 157, OF SESSION 1868-9. (MR. STANSFELD, PAGE 4.)

     LEGEND:
        (A) = Total Value of Copper Coined.
        (B) = Total Amount Paid for Copper Bullion and Old Copper Coin.
    +-------+----------------+---------------+---------------+------------+
    |       |                |               |               |            |
    | Date. |       (A)      |       (B)     | Profit on     |  Loss on   |
    |       |                |               | Coinage.      |  Coinage.  |
    +-------+----------------+---------------+---------------+------------+
    | 1860: |    £    _s. d._|   £    _s. d._|   £    _s. d._| £   _s. d._|
    |Copper |      134  8  0 | 16,317 10  0  | 21,672 18  0  |            |
    |Bronze |   37,856  0  0 |               |               |            |
    |       |                |               |               |            |
    |Bronze:|                |               |               |            |
    |1861   |  273,578 13  4 |117,963 10  0  |155,615  3  4  |            |
    |1862   |  352,800  0  0 |230,784  3  0  |122,015 17  0  |            |
    |1863   |  151,648  0  0 |136,315  0  0  | 15,333  0  0  |            |
    |1864   |   18,069  6  8 | 49,966  0  0  |               |31,896 13  4|
    |1865   |   57,493  6  8 | 16,518  0  0  | 40,975  6  8  |            |
    |1866   |   50,624  0  0 |  9,273  0  0  | 41,351  0  0  |            |
    |1867   |   33,301  6  8 |  6,260  0  0  | 27,041  6  8  |            |
    |1868   |   16,328  0  2 |  5,059  0  0  | 11,269  0  2  |            |
    |1869   |   20,832  0  0 |  8,355 15  6  |               |            |
    |       +----------------+---------------+---------------+------------+
    |       |1,012,665  1  6 |596,811 18  6  |435,273 11 10  |31,896 13  4|
    +-------+----------------+---------------+---------------+------------+
                       C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER OF THE MINT.
     ROYAL MINT, _31st May, 1870_.

The foregoing is demonstrative of the processes of coining as conducted
in the Royal Mint, and of the system which prevails in that Department;
I feel it right, however, to add an epitome of the trial of the pyx, a
custom established by the Mint Indenture of 18th Edward III.

I will describe the trial which took place on the 17th of July, 1861,
when the Lord Chancellor Westbury presided in the absence of the Queen,
whom he represented as though she were personally present. It should
have commenced at nine o’clock in the morning, but some delay was
caused by the inability to open the pyx chamber in Westminster Abbey,
owing to the rusting of the locks. The Lord Chancellor was supported
by the following members of the Most Honourable the Privy Council,
Lord Granville, the Duke of Argyll, Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right
Hon. Robert Lowe; Lord Monteagle attending officially with the trial
plates in sealed packages. The jury of twelve men selected by the
Goldsmiths’ Company was then sworn in due form. Lord Monteagle next
declared that the trial plates were standard according to law, and
that they were in the same state, and that the seals were in the same
state, as when deposited in the pyx chamber. The Lord Chancellor then
charged the jury, telling them of the prerogative of the Crown, and
that the Sovereign has a right to issue money bearing her image and
superscription, and that the people take such money in commerce because
it is guaranteed of certain purity, that this guarantee also insures
the receiving of the money by foreign nations; and that these facts
made the attesting of its purity a vital point, that all people might
be assured by their verdict that the money issued is in accordance
with the law, both as to weight and fineness. The Lord Chancellor then
explained the laws relating to the coinage, and that the Master of the
Mint, who was present, would, if their verdict were favourable, be
discharged from further liabilities as to the coin he had made up to
the 31st of December, 1860. After this the Lord Chancellor dwelt upon
the antiquity of the trial of the pyx very briefly, and then explained
that the word _pyx_ is of Greek origin, and means “box”—the box in
which is placed the money to be tested by the jury. He then explained
the law as to the custody of the pyx and of its keys, and passed on to
the latitude allowed for errors as to the standarding of the alloy,
and for the remedy by weight for each pound of manufactured coin;[125]
stating that there had been one adverse verdict found by a jury at
the trial of the pyx, but that the present verdict would doubtless be
favourable to the Master of the Mint, who would then be discharged from
further liabilities by Royal letters-patent. He then adjourned the jury
to the Goldsmiths’ Hall to make the necessary tests and trials of the
coin, desiring that they should afterwards deliver their verdict to
him, either at the House of Lords at six o’clock, or at his residence
at eight o’clock. Lord Monteagle then handed the trial plates to the
foreman of the jury. The trial plates are wide ribbons of gold and of
silver, about as thick as a florin, and indented on the edges. The face
of each plate is stamped with the obverse impression of a sovereign
die; and the date of its manufacture, with the proportion of its alloy,
is engraved on each plate.

[Footnote 125: Specified by the Mint Indenture, which was legalised by
the Act of Parliament 56 Geo. III. cap. 68, sec. ii.]

The jury, having arrived at the Goldsmiths’ Hall, proceeded to count
and weigh the gold and silver moneys of Sir John Herschel, and of
Thomas Graham, Esq.; they then selected a fixed number from the coins
of each Mastership for trial by assay, following a process similar to
that described at pages 10-14. The jury also tested the coined money by
weight, but did not test any individual coin (see new law, pages 70-73)
as to its weight, because the old law only required the coined money to
be within the limits of weight allowed, supposing a fixed number of any
coins to be weighed against a standard pound. The limit, or remedy, was
12 grains on each pound weight troy of gold coin, or about O·2568218
grain on each sovereign, and 24·00 grains on each pound weight troy of
silver coin. After the assay the jury agreed upon a verdict, which was
to the effect that the moneys of both Masterships were found by them to
be within the remedy, both as regards weight and fineness. This verdict
was delivered at eight o’clock P.M., at the Lord Chancellor’s private
residence. The Master of the Mint was present, with his Deputy Master
and other officers, during the trial. The total amount in the pyx at
this trial was £36,417 10_s._ in gold moneys, and £807 4_s._ 3_d._
in silver moneys, and from these the jury selected a total of 60·616
ounces of gold and 71·018 ounces of silver for the assays.

In the same manner the trial of the pyx was held at Westminster on the
19th January, 1866, the only difference consisting in the fact that
at that time £34,927,008 8_s._ 0¼_d._ in coined gold, and £1,556,100
11_s._ 10_d._ in coined silver were submitted to this test.

In an earlier page[126] I have expressed my views as to the
worthlessness of the farce called the _Trial of the Pyx_. While I
studiously avoid altering that expression of opinion, I am sorry
that the _last_ Trial of the Pyx under the ancient law took place
on Tuesday, the 15th day of February, 1870. I could have felt less
regret at the removal of this ancient custom from one law to another,
had there been provision for its better execution; but simply to do
away with the sacred charm of antiquity, and to enact a troublesome
deception, is worse than a blunder; it is, in my antiquarian view, a
crime.

[Footnote 126: See pages 53-56.]

The _Trial of the Pyx_—now, without meaning, as well as a farce—is to
be held, under the Act 33 Victoria, chap. 10, at least once in every
year. Why not daily throughout the year—that its absurdity may be
demonstrated more markedly? Had it been as it should have been, a real
trial of the Pyx, instead of an examination with a foregone conclusion
of certain coins; “at least once in every year,” would have been not
only justifiable but right.




CONCLUDING REMARKS.


Throughout the foregoing pages I have endeavoured to point out the
causes which lead to mismanagement in the Royal Mint, and I should
be glad if I could see a reason to hope that this state of things
was likely to terminate. However, there seems to exist an obstinate
determination to maintain the present arrangements. If proof of this
be required, it exists in the re-issue of Pistrucci’s device on the
sovereign of 1871, which meets with deserved condemnation from all
classes of opinion. It is a wrong to Pistrucci’s memory to append his
initials to a coin so mutilated. While, however, Mr. Fremantle thinks
it economy to continue—_vide_ “European Mints”—the present system of
the die department of the Royal Mint, the nation must bear the disgrace
inherent to such determination. There is, however, reason to believe
that this subject will be forced upon the Master of the Mint, for it
is now attracting considerable attention. That St. George, seated on
his horse, should be placed in a concavity, is perhaps intended to
symbolise the necessity for washing from him the dirt in which he has
of late been bathed; but that thus sinking the work on a coin is wise
may be questioned, for our coins should represent medals, not saucers
of tarnished copper. Instead, however, of altering the effigy of her
Majesty, they at the Mint have made an unwise alteration of the eye
alone, and which gives a very unpleasant expression. The necessity for
the issue of this new coin arose from the fact of the alteration from
base to standard coin (see pages 54-56), and its design is really a
Hall mark to point out to the Mint authorities the real value of the
coin. When purchased for melting, five hundred of these coins will be
worth £500, but an equal number of coins of the previous issue is worth
only £499; so that by the alteration the Bank of England now loses
£2,000 which it before enjoyed from this source, quite independently of
the profit demonstrated at pages 126-127.

I have insisted on the necessity for a different system as applied to
the chief engravership of the Royal Mint, and, consequently, for a new
effigy of her Majesty on the coins of the realm. I had hoped that when
the George and Dragon was issued, a new device would also appear, and
that this did not take place is a subject of universal regret. There
appears to be a want of knowledge as to the cause for retaining the
present obverse; I therefore mention it. The objection to change arose
with his late Royal Highness the Prince Consort, who resisted any
alteration of the design in the die of the face of her whom he loved
so well. This fact probably prevents the issue of a coin from the new
pattern die which is prepared in the Mint.

The want of knowledge exhibited in the Royal Mint is further
demonstrated by the recommendations of Mr. Napier, who has not been
at the pains to understand the cutting-out presses which he condemns.
I concur, however, in that condemnation; for these machines should
be small, powerful, and diaphanous, if I may so interpret that word;
not heavy and light-obstructing as at present. Such a machine can
readily replace the present machinery, which, with one coining press
and its complete accompaniments, will find a fitting home in the South
Kensington Museum. Had we in these days the inventive minds of past
generations, we might hope to see the principle of the screw press
of Mr. Boulton so modified and applied to the other presses in the
Mint, that they would require but little more space than that occupied
by themselves alone; indeed, such an instrument seems but a natural
result of the existence of Mr. Boulton’s press, and coins, intended to
represent medals, should be formed by a blow, not by gradual pressure.
That the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being should be
Master of the Mint is perhaps the strongest proof of the ignorance
on the subject of the Parliament which passed the Act that can be
produced. It keeps the Deputy-Master of the Mint, by his own admission,
continually journeying between the Mint and the Treasury Chambers to
instruct the Master, instead of, as he should be, attending to the
arrangements of the Mint. Parliament, I hope, will yet see that the
master of a working Department should be a practical, not merely a
financial or political man.

When the new Coinage Act was passing through Parliament, a clause was
introduced which has enabled any person to send gold to the Mint for
coinage free from expense, except loss of interest. Colonel Tomline,
M.P., has been the first to avail himself of this right, and I happened
to be with that gentleman on the 4th February, 1871, when he received
from the Mint £100 in coined gold, of which he gave me a specimen.
This is the first time that a private person has attempted such an
invasion of the prescriptive rights of the Bank of England, and by it
he has made a clear gain of 1¾_d._ (although in this instance he lost
profit by assay and trade practice), for he sent an ingot which weighed
25·681 ounces—seller’s weight at £3 17_s._ 9_d._ an ounce—and received
back from the Mint 25·684 ounces of sovereigns, or in excess weight
0·003 ounce. The time occupied was twenty days. The principle thus
established is a great one, and it is to be hoped that Colonel Tomline
will carry his point against the Master of the Mint as regards a free
coinage of silver; for while the Government claims the exclusive right
to coin silver, its workshop—the Mint—refuses to issue coined silver to
the public. That department sells threepenny pieces because the Bank of
England will not take the trouble; but all other silver coin goes to
that institution, to be issued by it to bankers alone in bulk.

Colonel Tomline will perhaps consider the wisdom of re-establishing
an Exchange where those who have an excess of bronze or silver can
exchange it for gold, and those who wish it can obtain the subservient
coinages.

There are strong reasons why the Royal Mint, instead of the Bank of
England, should purchase gold bullion and pay for it in Mint notes,
but, leaving the full consideration of this part of the subject for
a future opportunity, it seems that there can be little doubt of the
fairness of my proposition to charge one pound for the coining of
each thousand sovereigns, this sum being quite sufficient even under
the present system to protect the Mint from loss, while it is certain
that it would, under efficient management, yield a profit. If, then,
beyond this degree of protection against pecuniary loss by the gold
coinage the average amount of silver and bronze were coined, the
Royal Mint should be—and under proper control would be—not only a
self-supporting Department, but one of actual profit, just as the Post
Office has become, instead of, as at present, a vast abyss into which
a great amount of money is thrown, never again to appear. It must not
be conceived that my wish or intention is to do violence to those who
hold office; my desire has been to point out the irregularities which
prevail, and at the same time, from experience gained under exceptional
opportunities, and by perseverance under adverse circumstances,
to develope the actual facts, so that when these are known the
irregularities, to say the least of it, may be remedied.

I cannot assert that my descriptions explain the operations at the
Mint as now conducted; but this I do feel, that if such suggestions as
I have made for improvements in the operative department were alone
followed in their entirety, the result would be a clear saving of at
least £4,000 a year; while, if the other propositions which I have
endeavoured to demonstrate are carried into effect, it seems perfectly
clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer need not apply year after
year to include in the estimates the large amount required to meet the
losses of the Mint.

It is due to myself to state that the manuscript for my late edition
was in the hands of the Publisher at the time of Mr. Graham’s death,
and on the occurrence of that event I, at great expense, altered many
passages which I had written, with an especial view to Mr. Graham’s
replying to them.

I wish to state that my object is to point out the system and its
results; and in case the feelings of any gentlemen should be hurt,
I must apologise to them, pleading the necessity, when a discussion
on the Mint is pending, that all who are acquainted with the subject
should exhibit facts relating to it, that when the whole matter is
fairly considered a true judgment should be arrived at; for, as
Archbishop Whateley has truly said, “The deadliest of all falsehoods is
the lie of suppression.”




APPENDIX.


    TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.

               27, BERNARD STREET, RUSSELL SQUARE, W. C.
                                      _February 8th, 1871._

    MY LORD,

I shall feel obliged if I may thank you for your Lordship’s letter
of the 7th inst., in which you request from me—in consequence of the
remarks made on my character by Mr. Lowe in the House of Commons,
and by the Duke of Argyll and Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords—a
history of my connection with the Mint.

In compliance with your Lordship’s request, I proceed to put in
writing an account of my association with and severance from the
Royal Mint. That I may occupy as little of your Lordship’s valuable
time as possible, I have selected certain passages from the Treasury
correspondence which relate to myself. I am not aware that I have at
all unduly interpreted those letters, or that, by omitting parts, I
have made them appear more favourable to myself than they were intended
by their authors to be. If, however, the Government should so view
these extracts, may I beg of your Lordship to move for the complete
correspondence, the publication of which would, I believe, more fully
demonstrate my “case.” I possess copies of that correspondence, but
extracts from it will convey all that concerns myself; to this there is
one exception, and I beg to submit a considerable portion of one letter
from the Master of the Mint to the Treasury, because its contents fully
bear out my statement that great irregularities had existed and were
checked. Indeed, I now invite your Lordship’s attention to a passage
in that letter because the Mint is at present conducted at extravagant
expense, while its losses of bullion reach far towards the former
average. Mr. Graham says, “The diminished waste of late years (1857-60)
is further attended with increased economy in working, of which,
indeed, a low waste return is one of the surest indications.”

The correspondence which your Lordship has so generously placed at my
disposal, I also include that my account may be complete, although
necessarily brief. I should also state that, by the rules of the Civil
Service, an extra clerk cannot approach the head of his Department
without permission from his superior officer. Yet your Lordship will
observe that the Master of the Mint not only received my reports, but
addressed orders to, and treated me as, the chief on whom he relied,
as is proved by his writings now copied as well as by those in my
possession.

In the early part of the year 1856 the Master of the Mint found himself
so beset with difficulties arising from irregularities committed by
those who should have supported him, that he formed a determination to
engage a person on whom he could rely in the Coining Department, and
who at the same time had sufficient personal influence and knowledge of
the work to check those irregularities which he knew were taking place,
but which were beyond his personal supervision. These irregularities
were known to the Government of that period, and had caused so vast
an expense that that Government, which was presided over by Lord
Palmerston, had intimated to the Master, that unless the Mint could
be conducted more satisfactorily and economically, it would be broken
up as an imperial establishment, and thus necessitate the placing
of the coinage in the hands of contractors. With this view papers
were printed and issued to various firms; but Mr. Graham, being very
sincere and energetic in his desire to so conduct the Mint as that
this necessity should not arise, sought the advice of engineers and
others, with a view to finding such a man as combined within himself
the qualities which he saw to be necessary. Finally, by the advice
of Dr. A. W. Hofmann, he called upon me at my residence in October,
1856, and related to me in detail the facts above alluded to, and
explained precisely the position of affairs at the Mint, giving me
the names of the troublesome persons, and showing his own position to
be so intolerable, that without some one on whom he could rely, it
would be impossible for him to continue his Mastership. Mr. Graham
then proceeded to tell me what had passed between Dr. Hofmann and
himself as to my fitness for the work required, and explained clearly
the impossibility of placing me in a secure position or in high
office at first, but that if I would accept a supernumerary clerkship
temporarily, he would, when I had effected the object of his desires,
advise my promotion to the office then held by Mr. W. T. Brande, when
that office should become vacant. With this understanding I agreed
to accept the position proposed if duly appointed; but that I might
be able to carry out such reforms as were necessary, I insisted on
sufficient power being given to me by himself or by the Government. In
pursuance of this agreement, Mr. Graham recommended my appointment in
a letter to the Treasury, dated 29th October, 1856, in the following
terms:—

“I desired to introduce a young man, recommended by scientific and
technical information available in coining, by energy of character,
and by tried ability in the supervision of workmen—a faculty by no
means common. After applying to Mr. William Fairbairn and to Mr. George
Rennie, who both recommended candidates, and making inquiry in various
other quarters, I have been led to propose the name of Mr. George
Frederick Ansell as temporary clerk. Mr. Ansell was educated under Dr.
Hofmann, and acted for some years as his laboratory assistant. He has
since been Scientific Director in the Panopticon, Leicester Square,
which was lately broken up. He appears to be a person of superior
education and ability, and great activity and vigour of character, and,
as I have been assured, has shown much discretion in the management of
both pupils and workmen.”

Mr. Graham announced to me my appointment in the following note:—

                                 “_Royal Mint, November 6th, 1856._
    “MY DEAR SIR,—
    “I am happy to inform you that your nomination to office in the
     Mint has been approved by the Treasury.

    “Would you favour me with a call to-day before three o’clock, if
     quite convenient; or, if not, to-morrow morning after eleven.

                                           “Ever truly yours,
    “GEORGE FREDERICK ANSELL, ESQ.”                   “THOMAS GRAHAM.


I was thus appointed to a supernumerary clerkship, and took office in
the Rolling Room of the Royal Mint; but before doing so I particularly
inquired of Mr. Graham, in the presence of Mr. W. H. Barton, the then
Deputy-Master, what authority I should have, and how far I should be
supported if I attempted to enforce obedience, and whether I was at
liberty to call for statements and examine original documents and
books. He verbally authorised me to examine such books as I wished
to examine, and desired Mr. Barton to give me such statements or
information as I might ask for; and as to my authority, he said, “If
you order the men to dance a hornpipe on the table, they shall do it,
and all orders shall pass through your hands.” With such power, and a
salary of £120 a year, or rather £10 a month, I took office on the 12th
November, 1856.

An examination of the books in the Royal Mint will prove that I quickly
corrected the irregularities in the Rolling Room, and increased the
amount of finished work by 100 per cent. Loss of bullion became unknown
in that room.

In the Adjusting and Cutting Room, however, the losses and rejected
work continued to be astounding, the loss averaging seven ounces of
gold per diem, and for days together running so high as twelve ounces.
The Master had many times urged me to relinquish the direction of the
Rolling Room, and to take charge of the Cutting Room. I, however,
maintained that it was wiser “to begin at the beginning and clear up as
I went.” To this he reluctantly assented, but on the 25th of February,
1857, the officer who had charge of that department, as well as of the
Weighing Room, exhibited so decided an opposition to the written order
of the Master, that it became necessary for me to yield the point.
On that day I changed duties with the officer alluded to. The Master
wished me also to superintend and assist the officer so removed to the
Rolling Room, and I made a note to that effect in the official book of
that department, which doubtless still remains.

It had been the custom with officers in the Mint to consider it
derogatory to understand practically the machines in use, and the
officer whom I replaced did not know for years afterwards whether the
cylinders used in the Drag Bench were fixed or movable, and described
them as “going round like the rollers!!!” I had, however, a different
opinion; and, notwithstanding the scorn and contempt of the “gentlemen”
of the Mint, made myself minutely acquainted with all details, so
that I could perform the manual labour of each workman; this had been
observed, and when I took charge of the Adjusting and Cutting Rooms
the foreman of those rooms barricaded himself in his recess with a
determination to prevent me seeing his operations. I stepped from one
copper trough to another, and thus placed myself at his side, greatly
to his astonishment. His remarks were significant, “You mean to learn
the duties?” “I do.” To which he replied, “Man proposes, God disposes.”
I directed the removal of the barricades, and invited the foreman into
my private room, where a little conversation enabled him to understand
his new officer.

I then delegated to Mr. Richard Pilcher the charge of the Weighing
Room, and gave him the key of the stronghold in that room: while I
remained in the Mint he retained that position, and still holds it. He
served me faithfully and fearlessly.

Subsequently I weighed to the foreman of the Cutting and Adjusting
Room, in the presence of himself and the workmen, a given weight of
gold, which I watched in its progress, and weighed at each stop. As was
to be expected, there was a final increase of weight: many explanations
were asked, and given; but I firmly demanded all the gold so delivered,
each day, and thus replaced _habitual loss_ by habitual gain.

Without passing into too minute detail, it is sufficient to state, that
while some men were removed, others were introduced. That these changes
were made by me I can conclusively prove by the Master’s written orders
and letters to that effect. But the following letter to the Treasury
seems to tell an indisputable tale.

    EXTRACTS FROM LETTER OF MASTER OF THE MINT TO THE
                LORDS OF THE TREASURY.
                                     _Royal Mint, August 6, 1857._

    “The late foreman, who was dismissed.... The dismissal of
    J—— B——, late foreman in the Adjusting and Cutting
    Rooms, arose out of an investigation respecting the nature
    and extent of the waste of bullion in the operations of
    coining, which is a subject demanding the most watchful
    attention in the direction of a Mint. This loss is
    understood to have been represented by the moneyers as
    averaging 7 parts in 10,000 parts of gold coined, or £700
    in one million sterling coined; and it has continued
    undiminished under the new arrangements. Such an amount of
    loss of metal appeared to me excessive, and certainly is so
    when compared with the corresponding loss in the Mint of
    Paris, which I am informed on good authority lies between
    3 and 5 parts only in 10,000 parts of metal, and this with
    much hurry of execution, and with inferior machinery, and
    other circumstances against the Paris Mint.

    “The appointment of the new officers, Mr. —— and Mr.
    Ansell, in the Coining Department gave me means of laying
    out the inquiry with effect. It is a subject of considerable
    difficulty from the circumstances that the losses to be
    detected, as they occur, are minute in themselves, although
    their cumulative effect is great; and such losses are
    often masked and concealed by legitimate change of weight
    in the bullion, due to oxidation of the alloy, adhering
    oil, &c. Without entering into details I may state that I
    have reasons to believe the inquiry will result in a large
    reduction of our waste, and great profit to the Mint, which
    I trust will appear in the returns of the next gold coinage.
    A portion of the loss is traced to culpable proceedings on
    the part of the dismissed foreman, who, as tryer of fillets,
    appears to have occasioned much mischief by producing bad
    work (blanks out of remedy) seemingly with a purpose.

       *       *       *       *       *

    “By the vigorous action of two of these officers, Mr. ——
    and Mr. Ansell, great economy has been enforced throughout
    the Coining Department. Mr. Ansell, since his appointment in
    November last, has been acting on the salary of a temporary
    clerk, £10 a month, with the addition of £2 10_s._ per
    month when engaged from 8 A.M. till 6 P.M.
    I now beg strongly to recommend that Mr. Ansell’s
    monthly salary shall be increased to £12 10_s._, in
    consideration of his valuable services, with the addition of
    £2 10_s._ per month when engaged from 8 A.M.
    to 6 P.M. as heretofore.

       *       *       *       *       *

    (The master then goes on to request my Lords to do this
     for Mr. Ansell.)
                                           “THO. GRAHAM.
    “_August 6, 1857_ (No. 1114).”

    In this letter the Master justly attributes the stoppage
    of the losses to the dismissal of J—— B——, at my
    recommendation, and in consequence of my investigation, as
    is proved by my Report to the Master, and by his letter to
    the Treasury, copies of which I can furnish; but that this
    was the case is demonstrated by the following order:—

                          “_Royal Mint, 10th July, 1857._

    “Ordered that J—— B—— be discharged from the service of
    the Mint, in consequence of frequent neglect and inaccuracy
    as Tryer in the Adjusting and Cutting Rooms of the Coining
    Department, in accordance with the Report of Mr. Ansell, of
    July 8th. Confirmed by Mr. Buckle.

                            (Signed)      “THO. GRAHAM.”

(EXTRACT.) LETTER FROM THE TREASURY TO THE MASTER OF THE MINT.

                                    “_25th August, 1857._

    “My Lords sanction proposed arrangements of the 6th, but
    desire to receive a Report of the circumstances connected
    with the dismissal of J—— B——, in consequence of the
    investigation respecting waste of bullion.

                        (Signed)       “W. H. STEPHENSON.
    “_Mint (No. 1163), 27th August, 1857._”

I, in consequence of this letter from the Treasury, went to Somerset
House and to Doctors’ Commons, and obtained many particulars relating
to J—— B——; and the Master wrote a Report to the Treasury, of which I
have, and can produce, a copy: it is dated 15th June, 1858.

    (EXTRACT.) LETTER FROM THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY TO THE
                   MASTER OF THE MINT.

    “_Treasury Chambers, 3rd September, 1858._

    “SIR,

    “In reply to your letter, dated 17th ultimo, recommending
    the grant of increased salaries to Messrs. —— and Ansell,
    I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s
    Treasury to state, that although they readily admit
    Messrs. —— and Ansell’s claims upon their favourable
    consideration, they cannot authorise the full amount
    recommended for them: their Lordships are pleased to fix
    Mr. —— and Mr. Ansell’s salary at two hundred and twenty
    pounds a year, including the allowance hitherto received by
    him for additional attendance—both these augmentations to
    take effect from the commencement of the present year.

                     (Signed)      “C. E. TREVELYAN.
    “_Treasury (No. 14409), 3rd September._
        “THE MASTER OF THE MINT.”

Notwithstanding these facts the Master of the Mint, towards the
end of 1859, showed by his actions that he meant to introduce his
bankrupt brother, to whose character your Lordship alluded in the
House of Lords; and whose ignorance of the duties, coupled with great
inequality of temper and intemperate habits, rendered him totally unfit
for the office. Such being the unmistakable intention of Mr. Graham,
who disregarded the advice tendered to him by influential persons, I
addressed to him the letter which follows:—

    TO THE MASTER OF THE MINT FROM GEORGE F. ANSELL, ESQ.

                             “_Royal Mint, January 6th, 1860._

    “SIR,

    “I trust you will accord to me the regret with which I bring
    to your notice affairs relating to myself. Circumstances
    have placed me in a position which is very anomalous, while
    my salary is such that I find it quite impossible to manage
    my payments so as to keep free from debt, and I now most
    unwillingly approach you upon the subject, hoping that
    you will permit me to place in your hands the grounds on
    which I rest my hope, that my application will receive your
    favourable and early consideration. On the 12th of November,
    1856, I entered the service of the Mint as a Supernumerary
    Clerk, and subsequently passed the examination which was
    enforced by the Civil Service Commissioners, as that process
    was thought by you to be to my ultimate advantage.

    “In my first interview with you I expressed surprise at the
    large losses which you said were occurring, notwithstanding
    the weight of oil which was added to the precious metals in
    the processes of coining. My conviction of the impossibility
    of this loss arising if proper supervision were exerted was
    so great that I at once stated to you, in the presence of
    Mr. Barton, that there should be no loss at all upon either
    gold or silver; but that if oil were used there should be an
    increase of weight.

    “You, sir, gave me such authority in the Coining Department
    as would enable me to establish my proposition, which you
    then said was contrary to the facts as found in the Royal
    Mint, as well as in the Paris Mint.

    “By your orders I commenced my duties in the Rolling Room,
    and was soon satisfied that the irregularities which
    existed would quite explain the losses which had taken
    place. I reported to you faithfully from day to day all
    irregularities, but upon none did I dwell so earnestly as
    upon the errors in, and differences of, weighing, attended
    by circumstances of which I feel it unnecessary to remind
    you, unless I say that they were reduced and overcome by no
    ordinary perseverance and at great personal risk.

    “While the balances were in error it was impossible to
    determine how great the losses were, for they were stated
    to be more differences of weighing than anything else; but
    I felt it incumbent on me to experiment carefully on the
    gold which we were then coining, that I might thus satisfy
    myself and you of the truths of my proposition. The average
    of five preceding year’s gave a loss of 597·55 ounces on
    each million ounces coined; and the result of my first
    years experimenting was an average loss of 31·06 ounces on
    the million ounces coined. While the second year gave an
    absolute increase of weight of 9·22 ounces on the million
    ounces coined.

    “Your mind will picture the interests which I disturbed, and
    give me credit for the moral courage which became necessary
    to support the violent enmity which my course drew down on
    me, for you are aware of the vigour with which I was met by
    adverse opinions from Messrs. ——, ——, ——, and ——;
    these gentlemen, as well as the Junior Clerks, who were
    supposed to be my colleagues in the Coining Department,
    openly maintaining that there were, and had been, no
    unnecessary losses. Threats of personal violence did not
    deter me from my duty; but the men being well plied with
    arguments by the Messrs. ——, ——, who were supported by
    Mr. ——, rendered my course extremely difficult.

    “Mr. —— accused me of adding more oil than he used to
    permit, and so explained the—as he called it—“apparent
    stoppage of the losses;” but the fact of my using less
    oil than had ever been known was so notorious that he
    subsequently admitted it; nevertheless, the accusation
    induced me to experiment, and these experiments resulted
    in the total abolition of the use of oil in the Rolling
    Room, and on the Cutters; while the minute amount which was
    necessary at the Draw-Bench was carefully wiped off before
    the blanks were cut out.

    “Now that the use of oil is abolished gain is impossible,
    but the loss is invariably covered by the amount for which
    the sweep is sold, so that my proposition is now more
    satisfactorily proved than ever. Contemporaneously with
    these facts I had to encounter equally serious difficulties
    in the subject of rejected blanks, which reached 70 per
    cent. on the whole number of blanks cut; but the common
    average was from 30 to 35 per cent. By rigid experiments,
    conducted by my own hands, I reduced these abominations to
    1·00 per cent. on silver, and to 4·00 per cent. on gold,
    without the aid of Mr. Pilcher’s excellent filing machine.

    “In the year 1857-58, I coined by my own
    arrangements—although my plans were strongly combated at
    the time—the largest amount of gold coin ever yet produced
    in a given time, conducting the coinage without loss, and
    with a total of 4·50 per cent. of rejected blanks. A large
    quantity of this gold contained osmium-iridium, but I coined
    it without its being first refined.

    “In 1859 I coined about £250,000 (64,790·224 ounces) of a
    peculiarly brittle gold, which was delivered to the Bank
    of England in June and July, 1859. I believe this to be
    the first time that brittle gold has been coined so as to
    produce perfectly good and tough coins.

    “Permit me to remind you that all the elements of wrong
    still remain in the Mint, and would be re-exerted in the
    absence of your Mastership; for not one of those officers
    who permitted these things has been removed.

    “As a consequence of the abolition of the use of oil in the
    Coining Department, the losses in the Melting-House are
    greatly reduced.

    “In addition to my works in the Coining Department, I beg to
    state that I have, by my own hands, reduced the losses in
    the Melting-House (this was done during the time of using
    oil in the Coining Department) 33 per cent.; and my figures
    were not only admitted by Mr. Mushet, but absolutely proved
    by him to be below the truth.

    “It would be wrong in me to lead you to suppose that I
    have performed these works without active co-operation; I
    therefore freely acknowledge the services of Mr. —— during
    these past two years, and I beg to be permitted to say that
    he is now rendering you most efficient services.

    “If I have to acknowledge the services of Mr. —— I feel
    myself bound in justice to say more of Mr. Richard Pilcher,
    who has, under peculiar circumstances, rendered you through
    me most valuable services; he has done many things greatly
    to the advantage of the Mint. In times past, Mr. Pilcher
    has borne a life best described as that of ‘a toad under
    a harrow,’ and his position remaining the same, although
    his present circumstances are altered, he would be again
    thrust back into the trouble he has just escaped from. I
    therefore, trusting that you will not think me presumptuous,
    beg of you to recommend to the Lords of the Treasury, as a
    temporary measure, that Mr. Pilcher be recognised as holding
    a position equal to that of a Junior Clerk, and that he may
    have sole charge of the Weighing Room, with a salary of £200
    a year, which would be an addition of only £8 18_s._ a
    year to his present pay. I assure you, most honestly, that
    Mr. Pilcher is thoroughly competent to conduct the duties
    of the Weighing Room, for he has conducted them without a
    single fault for three years.

    “As regards myself, I feel that if you will give me your
    consideration, you will determine that my works are worthy
    a special application to the Lords of the Treasury; that my
    position and salary may be commensurate with my services,
    which have been rendered in profound confidence in your
    sense of justice towards those who do their duty to you.

    “You are aware, sir, that of necessity, I have placed myself
    in direct antagonism with those by whom you are surrounded,
    and that I can therefore hope for reward at your hands only.

    “With unmeasured hope and confidence,

                  “I am, Sir,
                        “Your most faithful servant,
                                          “GEORGE F. ANSELL.
    “TO THE MASTER OF THE MINT.”

After the “receipt of that letter” the Master told me he would at
once establish me, but could not make a fresh appointment, because
the Treasury looked with such distaste on new appointments; but
he promised me “the first place:” “you shall be first—above them
all.” That he admitted my claims is proved by the fact that he told
a mutual friend—whom I had consulted, and by whose advice I wrote
that letter—that “Mr. Ansell’s claims were stronger than he had
represented;” but that this was his real opinion is clearly proved, not
only by his former letters to the Treasury, but by the written orders
and notes addressed to me, now in my possession, and by the letter
which he wrote to the Treasury on the 7th June, 1860.

    (EXTRACT.) LETTER FROM THE MASTER OF THE MINT TO THE
         LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF HER MAJESTY’S TREASURY.
                                  _Royal Mint, 7th June, 1860._
    “SIR,

    “In continuation of the account of the waste or loss of
    bullion sustained in coining gold during the periods from
    1851 to 1858 which was submitted to the Lords Commissioners
    of Her Majesty’s Treasury, in my letter of the 22nd May,
    1858, I beg now to add a return of the waste upon the gold
    coinage of another year, 1858-9.

    “The waste in the Melting and Coining Departments will be
    stated separately.

    WASTE IN THE MELTING DEPARTMENT—GOLD COINAGE.

    +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+
    |              | Weight of |                |Amount |           |
    |    Date.     |    Gold   | Value of Gold  |  of   |   Value of|
    |              |  Coinage. |   Coinage.     |Waste. |    Waste. |
    +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+
    |April 1, 1858,|   Ounces. |    £    _s. d._|Ounces.| £  _s. d._|
    |  to March    | 736150·582|2,866,386 6  6¾ |248·804|968  15 7¼ |
    |  31, 1859.   |           |                |       |           |
    +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+
    +--------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
    |              |  Value    |  Value of  | Value of  |
    |    Date.     | of Sweep  | Waste per  | Sweep per |
    |              |recovered. |   Million. |  Million. |
    +--------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
    |April 1, 1858,| £  _s. d._|  £  _s.d._ |  £ _s. d._|
    |  to March    |231  2  1¼ | 337 19 7   | 80 12  6¼ |
    |  31, 1859.   |           |            |           |
    +--------------+-----------+------------+-----------+

“The net loss of the department will be obtained by deducting the value
of the sweep recovered from the value of the waste, reported above, and
is as follows:—

“On a gold coinage of £2,866,386 6_s._ 6¾_d._ the net loss by account
in the Melting Department is £737 16_s._ 5¾_d._; this gives on a
million coined a net loss of £257 7_s._ 0¾_d._ Of the loss by account a
portion is apparent only, and depends upon the dissipation during the
melting of the oil and other impurities adhering to the gold scissel.
The adventitious matter described was acquired by the scissel in the
coining operations, and it has the effect of lowering the amount of
loss reported in the Coining Department (as will be seen immediately)
in the same proportion that it elevates the loss by account of the
Melting Department. But after making allowances for the circumstance
just stated, the loss of gold in melting remains higher in my opinion
than it ought to be, and it will, I trust, be found to admit of some
further reduction in future years.

    WASTE IN COINING DEPARTMENT—GOLD COINAGE.

    +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+
    |              |           |                |Amount |           |
    |    Date.     | Weight of |    Value of    |  of   |  Value of |
    |              |  Coinage. |     Coinage.   |Waste. |   Waste.  |
    +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+
    |April 1, 1858,|  Ounces.  | £       _s. d._|Ounces.| £ _s. d._ |
    |  to March    | 736150·582|2,866,386 6  6¾ |16·603 |64 12 11¼  |
    |  31, 1859.   |           |                |       |           |
    +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+
    +--------------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    |              |  Value    | Value of  | Value of   |
    |    Date.     | of Sweep  | Waste per | Sweep per  |
    |              |recovered. |  Million. |  Million.  |
    +--------------+-----------+-----------+------------+
    |April 1, 1858,|£   _s. d._|£  _s. d._ | £  _s. d._ |
    |  to March    |209 16  7  |22  11 0¾  | 73  4  0¾  |
    |  31, 1859.   |           |           |            |
    +--------------+-----------+-----------+------------+

“On a gold coinage of £2,866,386 6_s._ 6¾_d._ the account shows a waste
amounting to £64 12_s._ 11½_d._, with sweep recovered amounting to
£209 16_s._ 7_d._ The Coining Department therefore returns a surplus
by account of £145 3_s._ 7½_d._; that is, £209 16_s._ 7_d._ less £64
12_s._ 11¼_d._

“A surplus by account instead of the usual loss was exhibited for the
first time in the return of the preceding year. A true surplus or
increase of metal is of course unattainable in any minting operation.
The increase of weight recorded arises from adventitious matter
acquired by the gold scissel in the Coining Department, to be again
lost in the melting, as was just explained. The surplus by account of
the Coining Department amounts to £50 13_s._ 0_d._ on £1,000,000 coined.

“A correct estimate of the whole waste in coining is obtained by
combining the returns of the two departments:—

                                    £   _s. d._
    “Loss of Melting Department    257   7  0¾ per million.
     Loss of Coining Department     50  13  0         ”
                                   --------------
                     Difference    206  14  0¾        ”

“It thus appears that in 1858-9 the net loss in minting £1,000,000 gold
was £206 14_s._ 0¾_d._

“The annual loss since the reconstitution of the Mint in 1851 is as
follows.

“Loss of bullion (waste, less sweep recovered) in minting £1,000,000
gold—

                   £   _s. d._
    In 1851-52    479   5  8
     ” 1852-53    921  10  7
     ” 1853-54    795  11  7¾
     ” 1854-55    661   2  4¼
     ” 1855-56    724   1  3
     ” 1856-57    691  14  1¾
     ” 1857-58    140   4  7[127]
     ” 1858-59    206  14  0¾
     ” 1859-60    187   0  0 partly by estimate.

[Footnote 127: Understated at £99 14_s._ 5½2_d._ in previous letter of
May 22, 1858, in consequence of the sweep recovered per million having
been taken at £136 13_s._ 9_d._ instead of £93 3_s._ 7_d._, the correct
amount.]

“An additional year just completed, 1859-60, which appears in the
preceding statement, is given subject to a subsequent correction of a
few pounds more or less, as the sweep of that year (being still unsold)
is taken by estimate.

“It appears by the table that the average loss on the gold coinage of
the first six years is £784 0_s._ 0¾_d._; and on the gold coinage of
the last three years, £172 8_s._ 11½_d._ per million coined; showing
an improvement of £611 11_s._ 1¼_d._ per million coined. On the twelve
millions of gold coined, during the last three years, the saving
exceeds twelve thousand pounds.

“The diminished waste of the late years is further attended with
increased economy in working, of which, indeed, a low waste return
is one of the surest indications. The proportion of sovereign blanks
rejected in passing through the weighing machines, and which require
to be remelted, causing thereby additional waste of metal and loss of
labour, has been gradually diminished. This is shown by the following
returns respecting the work performed in similar circumstances at
various periods.

    PROPORTION IN 100 SOVEREIGN BLANKS CUT.

    “In 1855    21·49 per cent.
      ” 1856    18·51     ”
      ” 1859    13·78     ”      Under present officers.
      ” 1860     4·11     ”          ”            ”

“The last small proportion of 4·11 per cent. of rejected blanks was
further reduced to 2·07 per cent. by submitting the heavy portion of
the blanks to the action of a new filing machine. I may be allowed to
recall to your recollection that a Parliamentary grant of £1,100 was
obtained by the Mint in 1856 for the purchase of two automaton filing
and adjusting machines, which it was proposed to have constructed by
Messrs. Napier and Sons, the eminent engineers. No part of this grant
has been appropriated.

“The rapid amendment in the blanks which took place immediately
afterwards led me to suspend the order for those machines, and
ultimately to abandon the idea of any great expenditure for the object
contemplated. In the meantime also a machine of a much more simple
construction was contrived by Mr. Richard Pilcher, of the Weighing
Room, and was constructed in the Mint with no assistance from without.
Pilcher’s adjusting machine has proved sufficiently effective, costs
nothing for labour, and has now been in constant operation for two
years. The cost of making a pair of machines such as we now possess
is estimated at £60, a sum which was saved to the public by the mode
in which the work was executed. Trusting that the Lords Commissioners
of her Majesty’s Treasury will be disposed to consider favourably the
merit and practical value of such an invention, I venture to solicit
their Lordship’s sanction to the application of £60, the sum just
stated, to the benefit of the inventor, jointly with an ingenious
mechanic on the establishment who gave material assistance in the
construction of the machine. I would propose the following awards, if
agreeable to their Lordships:—

“To Mr. R. Pilcher £40.

“To Meredith Jones £20.

“Their Lordships have afforded encouragement on previous occasions to
voluntary efforts made within the Department in improving the machinery.

“On one additional point I would take the opportunity to offer
information, and also submit a proposition for their Lordships’
consideration. A correspondence between the Governor of the Bank of
England and myself, on the property of the gold occasionally imported
into the Mint to be coined, was formerly brought under your notice
in my letter of the 21st of March, 1857. The evidence of the evil in
question was not confined to the Royal Mint, but has, I believe, been
felt at all other Mints, and also by goldsmiths generally, since the
recent gold discoveries. It was, however, traced to the presence
in the gold of a minute portion of antimony or arsenic (often not
greater in quantity than one-tenth of a per cent.), which escapes the
observation of the assayers. But no remedy in dealing with such gold
presented itself, except the expensive one of having the brittle gold
refined.

“An unusually large proportion of the gold received for coinage
last year was of this defective character; but the whole of it was
successfully coined, notwithstanding, and no part returned to the Bank
to be refined, as on former occasions.

“This improvement in the practice of the Mint is the result of a
laborious investigation made in the coining department, of which I am
happy to assign the chief merit to Mr. Ansell. It now appears that the
antimony or arsenic acts injuriously when the gold blanks are allowed
to cool gradually, but not when cooled suddenly after annealing; the
gold appearing to have time to crystallise and become granular under
the influence of the antimony particles in the one case, but not in the
other. The improvement may be justly represented as one of considerable
value. It saves entirely much extra labour hitherto applied to brittle
gold without any beneficial result. It will also lead to the diminution
of waste, of which indeed brittle gold was always a fruitful source.

“The services of Mr. Ansell in effecting this improvement appear to me
well deserving of recognition; and I would strongly recommend the award
to that gentleman of a moderate grant of such amount as their Lordships
may be pleased to accord, on account of these services. Mr. Ansell is
a valuable officer, and no one has contributed more to the reduction
in other ways of the expenditure of the establishment. Both he and Mr.
——, another junior officer of the Coining Department, are also engaged
at salaries (...) which are certainly very moderate, considering the
responsible duties these gentlemen are called upon to perform.

                               (Signed)      “THO. GRAHAM.
    “To GEORGE A. HAMILTON, ESQ., Treasury.”

I quote thus much of this letter to prove to your Lordship that THE
MASTER ADOPTED MY RECOMMENDATIONS; indeed, he specifically stated to
me that the recommendations for Mr. Pilcher and myself were made with
a view to support a future application. I would also observe that the
actual money saving effected by the coining of the brittle gold here
alluded to was £1,562 7_s._ 11¾_d._, and I desire to be very clear in
stating that I copied this letter from Mr. Graham’s own writing. That a
copy of it was sent to the Treasury would seem to be certain, for the
following reply was received and handed to me by the Master:—

           FROM THE TREASURY TO THE MASTER OF THE MINT.

                     “_Treasury Chambers, 22nd September, 1860._

    “SIR,

    “I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s
    Treasury to acquaint you that the general result of your
    Report of the 7th June last on the loss of bullion in
    coining gold in the year 1858-1859 is, in the opinion of
    my Lords, very creditable to the Department under your
    management. My Lords willingly accede to your recommendation
    that £40 should be granted to Mr. R. Pilcher, and £20 to
    Meredith Jones for their services in the invention and
    construction of an adjusting machine under the circumstances
    represented in your Report. My Lords will also be prepared
    to grant a suitable payment to Mr. Ansell, in recognition
    of his services in obviating the difficulty in coining gold
    containing minute portions of antimony or arsenic, and they
    request that you will report to them the amount that you
    recommend to be granted to Mr. Ansell.

                        (Signed)      “GEORGE A. HAMILTON.

        “THE MASTER OF THE MINT.
        “_Mint Number, 2988, 24th September, 1860._”

In answer to this the Master wrote to the Treasury, recommending a
payment of £100 to Mr. Ansell, and the Treasury reply was as follows:—

    FROM THE TREASURY TO THE MASTER OF THE MINT.

                          “_Treasury Chambers, 19th October, 1860._
    “SIR,

    “With reference to your letter of the 13th instant, I
    am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s
    Treasury to acquaint you that my Lords are pleased to
    authorise, in accordance with your recommendation, the grant
    of £100 to Mr. Ansell in recognition of his services in
    obviating the difficulty of coining gold containing a minute
    portion of antimony or arsenic.

                            (Signed)     “GEORGE A. HAMILTON.
            “THE MASTER OF THE MINT.
    “_Mint Number, 3024, 20th October, 1860._”

Under my advice, the Master addressed a letter to Mr. Pilcher,
conveying to that gentleman the £40, having previously written to me
the following letter:—

    THE MASTER OF THE MINT TO G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.
                                  “_Royal Mint, 20th October, 1860._

    “DEAR SIR,

    “Your success in obviating the difficulty of coining
    gold containing a minute portion of antimony or arsenic
    is a benefit to this department which calls for my most
    grateful thanks. In recognition of your services, I have the
    pleasure, with the approbation of the Lords Commissioners
    of Her Majesty’s Treasury, to present to you the sum of one
    hundred pounds, for which cheque is enclosed.

              “I have the honour to remain,
                        “Dear Sir,
                              “Most faithfully yours,
                         (Signed)      “THO. GRAHAM.

       “GEORGE F. ANSELL, ESQ.
    “_Mint Number, 3026, 1860._”

I was not at the time aware that the Master wrote to the Treasury on
the 8th of June, 1860. That he did so, would seem to be proved by the
following letter in reply; but that he should write on the next day
after his letter of the 7th June, 1860, renders it possible that he
made some alteration after that letter left my hand. I have not, my
Lord, seen the letter written on the 8th June and alluded to in the
next.

    (EXTRACT.) LETTER FROM THE TREASURY TO THE MASTER OF THE MINT.

                          “_Treasury Chambers, 25th September, 1861._
    “SIR,

    “I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s
    Treasury to inform you that, having in consideration the
    very favourable opinion expressed in your Report of the
    8th June, 1860, as to the ability and vigilance displayed
    by Messrs. —— and Ansell, and the saving which has been
    effected in the processes at the Mint under your direction,
    their Lordships are pleased to sanction the increase of £30
    a year to the salaries of those gentlemen, to take effect
    from the commencement of the present quarter, as recommended
    in your letter of the 6th instant.

                          (Signed)       “GEORGE A. HAMILTON.

        “THE MASTER OF THE MINT.
    “_Mint Number, 454, 26th September, 1861._”

On the introduction to the Mint of Mr. John Graham all was changed,
and it became clear that I was to be sacrificed. Mr. Barton, then
Deputy-Master, therefore advised me to bring the matter to an issue
by applying for the first vacant office. This I did, but my note was
not even acknowledged; the Master, however, obtained a “Minute” from
the Lords of the Treasury to the effect that _extra clerks were not
at liberty to apply for promotion_, and this was conveyed to me by a
messenger. To the office for which I had thus applied, Mr. John Graham
who was then an extra clerk, was subsequently appointed. Upon the
occurrence of the death of Mr. W. T. Brande, whose office had been
specifically promised to me, I spoke to the Master of the Mint; but
he assured me “The Treasury would fill up the vacancy, for they were
dissatisfied with the whole of the Mint appointments.” He, however,
appointed his brother, notwithstanding his acknowledged incompetence
and unfitness. It was on the occurrence of that event that Mr. Barton
strongly “advised me, on the event of the next vacancy to apply for it
over the Master’s head, if you can get an influential person to back
you.”

Finding the ground thus removed from my feet, I sought counsel with my
friends, and determined to renew my studies in chemistry—having, in
consequence of the Master’s promises, relinquished that profession when
I entered the Mint.

It now becomes necessary to show by what occurrences my name was
brought to your Lordship’s notice, and this I will do briefly.

When I had completed my laboratory in Bernard Street, I called on Mr.
Robert Hunt, F. R. S., and asked him what subject would be likely to do
me most service. He at once kindly suggested “a means to find fire-damp
in coal mines—one that will act unerringly, and require no attention
from man.” I at once adopted the subject for study, and Mr. Hunt gave
me many kind letters of introduction that I might “see my enemy at
home,” especially a note to Mr. Oakes of Riddings House, Alfreton,
whose generosity and hospitality were very prominent. I told that
gentleman the object of my visit, and talked with him at considerable
length, for I found in him a man singularly desirous to help his
fellow-men. Mr. Oakes invited his brother to take me to a pit at a
distance of about four miles, where I should be almost sure to find
some fire-damp, and to this pit Mr. Oakes, junior, most kindly took me.
The coal pit was itself a very remarkable one, and contained singular
evidences in the history of the past. It will ever be associated with
the invention of my “Fire-damp Indicator,” for it was in this pit
that the idea for its formation occurred to me. If, therefore, this
instrument should fortunately be the means of saving life, that benefit
will have arisen from the kindness of Mr. Oakes. When I had made my
instruments, I took them to the Mint, and showed them to Mr. Graham.
Diffusion being fitly styled GRAHAM’S LAW, I took it for granted he
would be pleased to find that force applied practically. I said to him,
“I have proposed, Mr. Graham, to indicate the existence of fire-damp in
coal mines.” He replied, “Ah, yes; that subject comes up every seven
years.” I placed an instrument on his table, and asked if he would look
at it, saying, “I propose to use your law of diffusion.” Before I had
finished the word _diffusion_ he cut in upon me with an exclamation of
great force, “Good God! what would I have given for that thought!” I
said, “God gave it to me.” To which he said, “I was on the Coal Mines
Commission, and I did all I could to find a means of discovering the
presence of that dreadful gas.” He refused to examine my apparatus, on
the ground that he objected to the smell of gas, but said, “the honour
of being associated with you in it would be so great that I shall be
glad if you will allow me to pay all expenses, and you can make your
experiments in my laboratory; the apparatus shall be left there.” I,
however, declined his offer.

I exhibited the apparatus, as was but natural, in the first instance
to Mr. Robert Hunt, at his residence, and afterwards to many other
scientific men. It was subsequently noticed in the _Times_, in very
high terms. A few days after that event, I received a note from Dr.
Angus Smith, F.R.S., asking if I could “exhibit my experiments to
Lord Kinnaird at 2 P.M. to-morrow.” I gladly accepted the proposed
appointment, and suggested whether “his Lordship could obligingly come
to me at 27, Bernard Street,” which he courteously did, accompanied
by Mr. P. H. Holland and Dr. Angus R. Smith. I then found that Lord
Kinnaird was Chairman, and Mr. Holland a Commissioner, of the Royal
Commission of Mines. Your Lordship, as you may remember, honoured me by
remaining in company with Mr. Holland and Dr. A. Smith for more than
two hours, examining minutely every detail. From that day you have
spared neither time nor labour to induce coal owners to adopt and use
my “Indicator,”—which your Lordship also brought under the notice of
Her Majesty, who deputed H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh to examine it on
her behalf. This His Royal Highness graciously did at my residence.
It has also been distinguished by mention in the Preface to the last
edition of Ure’s Dictionary, in which work it is fully described. In
practical operation it has proved to be entirely successful even in
the hands of working colliers, who have, on more than one occasion,
said to me, “When men’s lives are as valuable as those of horses, your
instruments will be used; but, you see, they buy horses, and men they
get for nothing.”

I took occasion to speak with your Lordship about my troubled position
at the Mint, and asked permission to make known to you all the
circumstances. You having thus heard from me a statement of my views,
advised me to await the arrival of the proper time, and stated that
then you would assist me. I have already said that Mr. Barton advised
me to apply over Mr. Graham’s head for promotion when a vacancy should
occur, and I therefore waited that event. Unfortunately for me, Mr.
Barton was the first to be removed by death, he having died on the 25th
August, 1868. I had, therefore, no powerful friend left in the Mint.

It was amidst such circumstances that I sought the assistance of your
Lordship; which commenced with the following correspondence:—

    FROM THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.,
         TO THE RIGHT HON. B. DISRAELI.

                            “_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B._,
                                       “_August 28th, 1868._
    “DEAR SIR,

    “May I ask you to read the enclosed—I cannot, of course,
    ask you as from myself to attend to the application
    therein—but having become acquainted with Mr. Ansell during
    the time I was Chairman of the Mines Commission, I was so
    struck with his intelligence and ingenuity, combined with
    a great knowledge of chemistry, that I felt he was a very
    valuable public servant. Mr. Ansell has invented a machine
    for the discovery of fire-damp in mines, which, if generally
    adopted, would be the means of preventing great loss of
    life from explosions in coal mines, and I am convinced that
    if you could find time you would be much interested in
    witnessing his experiments.

    “Mr. Ansell has no friends in high quarters to bring his
    claims under your notice; I venture therefore to do so,
    however unwillingly, because I feel that he is deserving,
    and especially well fitted for the appointment. With many
    apologies for troubling you,

                 “I remain,
                         “Yours faithfully,
                     (Signed)        “KINNAIRD.

       “THE RIGHT HON. B. DISRAELI.”

                          ENCLOSURE.

                               “_Royal Mint, August 28th, 1868._
    “SIR,

“I most respectfully request your attention to the following statement
of my claim for promotion consequent on the death of the Deputy
Master of the Mint, Mr. Barton. By a letter dated 29th October,
1856, addressed to the Treasury, I was recommended by Mr. Thomas
Graham, F.R.S., the Master of the Mint, as fit to be appointed to a
Supernumerary Clerkship in the Royal Mint.

“On the 12th of November, 1856, I was appointed to that office at
a salary of £120 per annum, having previously passed the necessary
examination before the Civil Service Commissioners. The internal
management of the Mint then was, and had for some time previously,
been in great confusion; the workmen were disorderly and dishonest,
peculation was of daily occurrence, and it was universally believed
that the processes of coining could not be carried on without
considerable loss. Moreover, in consequence of the various modes by
which bullion was then weighed, it was almost impossible to detect
dishonesty. Nor was this all, for the blank coins were so imperfectly
executed that it was always necessary to reject and return to the
melting-pot from 15 to 35 per cent.

“From 1851 to 1856 the average ‘loss by coining,’ as it was then
called, was

    In  gold,  £581·42 per million pounds sterling.
    In silver, £271·00 per million ounces coined.

“During the same years the average number of blank coins rejected was

    In  gold,  17·92 per cent.
    In silver, 25·00    ”

“At this period, owing to the use of oil on the metal in the processes
of coining, an additional loss was incurred in the melting. The average
loss by melting during the same period being,

    In  gold,  £356·33 per million pounds sterling.
    In silver, £210·75 per million ounces coined.

“Soon after I entered the Mint I was taken into the confidence of the
Master.

“I satisfied him that by proper management and vigilance no loss
ought to be incurred by the processes of coining; that if due care
were taken, scarcely any of the blank coins, when completed, would be
rejected, and that a further saving to the Government would be effected
by abolishing the use of oil in the processes of coining.

“Mr. Graham entrusted to me the sole task of carrying out these
reformations, at the same time promising that if I were successful I
should be amply rewarded by promotion.

“You, Sir, will be able to judge of my success by the following
results:—

“Instead of any ‘loss by coining’ since 1856 to the present date, there
has been, on the average, a positive gain:—

    In gold, £20 per million pounds sterling coined;
    While for silver, £55·75 per million ounces coined is the total average loss.

“During the same time the average number of blank coins rejected has
been

    In  gold,  2·07 per cent.
    In silver, 1·00    ”

“During the same period the average loss by melting has been reduced to,

    In gold,   £271·90 per million pounds sterling.
    In silver, £57·90 per million ounces coined.

“In 1857, as you, Sir, will doubtless perfectly remember, there arose
a very great pressure on the Bank of England for coined gold; any
endeavour to supply this unusual demand necessitated great exertion
on the part of the Mint, and the Master of the Mint placed the matter
entirely in my hands. I produced, without a single instance of loss by
peculation, and with an average of only 6 per cent. rejected blank
coins, 1,100 journey weights of sovereigns per week, being more by 200
journey weights than had ever before been obtained. I thus was the
humble means of saving the country from experiencing the disastrous
effects consequent on the Bank of England being unable to meet the
demand for gold—a state of things almost universally expected at the
time as the unavoidable result of the then monetary crisis.

“In 1858, during the temporary absence on leave of the Master Melter,
the Master of the Mint, by a written order, directed me to conduct the
melting department. This I did with such success as to reduce the then
ordinary loss by melting by no less than 33 per cent.

“By a letter to the Treasury, dated 17th August, 1858, Mr. Graham
recommended my salary to be increased to £220 per annum. This was done
soon afterwards.

“In 1859 I endeavoured to coin a large quantity of brittle gold, which
had up to that time, not only in the Royal Mint, but also in the mints
of other countries, been invariably rejected, under the impression that
it was totally unfit for coining purposes in consequence of its extreme
brittleness. I coined and sent to the Bank of England upwards of a
quarter of a million pounds sterling of this brittle gold, the coins
having proved to be so tough that they could not be broken by ordinary
means. For this service I received from Mr. Graham a letter, dated 20th
October, 1860, conveying to me ‘his most grateful thanks,’ and from
the Lords of the Treasury a small gratuity of £100, awarded to me in
consequence of a letter to the Treasury from the Master of the Mint,
dated 13th October, 1860, recommending that such a donation should be
made.

“By a subsequent letter, dated September 6th, 1861, Mr. Graham
recommended the Lords of the Treasury to raise my salary to £250 per
annum. His recommendation was at once acceded to on the part of the
Treasury.

“In 1862, at the request of the Master of the Mint, I undertook the
destruction of the old copper money, and destroyed from 10 to 16 tons
per diem, at the comparatively small cost of 8_s._ 4_d._ per ton.
Before this work was put under my charge 2 tons per diem had never
been destroyed; and in the Paris Mint, where a similar process of
demonetising had been in operation, the cost had never been less than
£10 per ton.

“On several occasions offers were made to me of situations (unconnected
with the Royal Mint) in which I should have earned a much greater
salary than that which I now receive, but I have always been induced to
refuse them by the express promises made to me from time to time by the
Master of the Mint, Mr. Graham, that he would ensure my being placed in
a safe position in the Mint.

“In the month of November, 1863, the office of Assistant Coiner became
vacant. No one, so far as I am aware, had performed so many or so
important services as to give him such a claim to that appointment as
I possessed; but, much to my surprise, Mr. Graham ignored my claims,
and appointed to the vacant office his brother, Mr. John Graham,
a gentleman considerably junior to me in the service of the Mint.
Smarting under what I conceived the injustice I had experienced from
the Master of the Mint, I wrote perhaps too strongly, but for this
I have apologised, and he has accepted my apology, but I feel that
it is probable that the Master of the Mint will, consequently on the
estrangement between us, not recommend me for the appointment, and I
can only rely on my services (into which I hope you will kindly cause
inquiry to be made), as giving me a claim, and therefore venture to
address you by the advice of Lord Kinnaird.

“The unwillingness which I have cause to fear on the part of the Master
of the Mint to recommend me will not, I am sure, arise from a belief of
my unfitness—as in 1864 he offered to secure to me the appointment of
Chief Coiner and Melter to the Hong Kong Mint, at a salary of £1,000
a year—an appointment which, being the father of a family, I was
compelled to decline.

“I have to apologise for thus venturing to address you, which I could
only think of doing under the belief that you will take into your
favourable consideration the application of one who has endeavoured
faithfully and zealously to fulfil his duty, and not without some
success, as I have endeavoured to point out.

              “I have the honour to be, Sir,
                      “Your most obedient servant,
                   (Signed)      “GEORGE P. ANSELL.

       “THE RIGHT HONOURABLE B. DISRAELI,
    “Hughendon Manor, Buckinghamshire.”

This application, I would remind your Lordship, was made while Mr.
Disraeli was First Minister of the Crown, and was acknowledged as
follows:—

                 “_10, Downing Street, Whitehall, August 31st, 1868._

    “MY LORD,

    “I am directed by Mr. Disraeli to acknowledge the receipt of
    your Lordship’s letter of the 28th inst., and to acquaint
    you that he has made a note of its contents.

           “I have the honour to be, my Lord,
                     “Your obedient servant,
                    (Signed)      “MONTAGU CORRY.

      “THE LORD KINNAIRD.”

On the 3rd September, 1868, Mr. Montagu Corry called on the Master of
the Mint and remained with him some considerable time.

On the 28th September I received by a messenger, without any further
intimation, the following note:—

    THE MASTER OF THE MINT TO G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.
                      “_Royal Mint, 28th September, 1868._

    “DEAR SIR,

    “I regret to have to inform you that it is not in my power
    to continue your present engagement as an extra officer in
    the coining department while the Mint is only so partially
    occupied as it has been for some time past.

    “Your assistance will not, therefore, be required beyond the
    31st December next.

               “I remain, faithfully yours,
                    (Signed)        “THO. GRAHAM.

      “G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.”

Which I immediately forwarded to your Lordship, asking advice, when you
were so good as to write as follows:—

    THE RT. HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., TO THE RT. HON. B. DISRAELI.
                “_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., September 30th, 1868._

    “DEAR SIR,

    “I venture to trouble you on behalf of Mr. Ansell, of the
    Royal Mint, who I had advised to apply to you for the
    appointment of Deputy Master of the Mint, as from his
    long experience in the Department, and great ability as a
    chemist, I felt he deserved promotion, and was in every
    way fitted for the office. It seems however, that his
    application has drawn down the ire of the Master of the
    Mint, who, I suppose, wished to have some friend of his own,
    consequently Mr. Ansell has received a very curt dismissal
    (copy enclosed).

    “It is very hard on a public servant who has done his duty
    for so many years to be thus summarily dismissed, and I
    therefore venture again to trouble you on the subject,
    feeling confident that your sense of justice will dispose
    you to view the matter favourably.

          “Yours faithfully,
           (Signed)       “KINNAIRD.

        “THE RIGHT HON. B. DISRAELI, GROSVENOR GATE.”

Your Lordship also wrote letters to the noblemen and gentlemen who had
supported my application.

On the 2nd December, 1868, Mr. Disraeli, on the eve of his resignation,
appointed Mr. C. W. Fremantle—his private secretary—to the vacant
office of Deputy-Master of the Mint.

    THE RT. HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., TO THE RT. HON. W. E. GLADSTONE.
                 “_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., December 25th, 1868._

    “DEAR MR. GLADSTONE,

    “I should not have troubled you at present, as you still
    must have much to occupy your time and attention; but the
    case I have to bring before you is _pressing_, as, if
    anything is to be done in the matter, initiatory steps must
    be taken before the 31st.

    “During the time I was engaged on the Mines Commission, I
    became acquainted with Mr. G. F. Ansell, of the Mint, who
    has invented a most ingenious instrument for detecting
    fire-damp in mines, which, if generally adopted in working
    coal pits, would, I am perfectly satisfied, be the means
    of saving life to a very great extent. I have, therefore,
    taken great interest in Mr. Ansell, and on the occasion of
    the death of the Deputy Master of the Mint, I and other
    friends of his applied to the late Government to appoint him
    to the vacant office, and we believed that he would get the
    appointment for which he is so well qualified. Some delay,
    however, took place, which, we were led to believe, was
    owing to the Master of the Mint, Mr. Graham, being opposed
    to it, and he at the same time, on the plea that Mr. Ansell
    was a supernumerary clerk, though _he had been twelve
    years_ in the service, gave him notice to quit on the
    31st of this month, and the office of Deputy has been filled
    up.

    “Now Mr. Ansell, who is a very able chemist, and has got
    the very highest testimonials, gave up his profession under
    a promise that he was to get a permanent appointment in
    order to undertake a most difficult task—that of detecting
    peculations which were taking place in the Mint. In this he
    succeeded, and was highly complimented by the Master of the
    Mint in letters to the Treasury which can be seen.

    “The fact is, he saved the country, as the tables will
    show, upwards of £27,000, to say nothing of the advantage
    of putting a stop to peculations, and introducing order and
    economy in the working of the Mint.

    “Mr. Graham, though having borne, and still bearing, witness
    to Mr. Ansell’s high qualifications to the office, has
    conceived a strong dislike to Mr. Ansell, because, as I
    understand, Mr. Ansell remonstrated with him, and has spoken
    to the Master in strong terms, on the appointment of his
    brother, Mr. John Graham, to an office in the Mint.

    “In consequence of this ill-will, and of Mr. Ansell having
    applied to the late Government for the appointment of Deputy
    Master, Mr. Ansell has been dismissed, _after twelve
    years’_ service, on the _plea_ that there is no work
    for him. Although a fresh coinage is about to take place
    immediately, and I think there is every probability of these
    peculations being again carried on if inefficient men are
    appointed, and there is no one to check them as Mr. Ansell
    did, I think I am justified, for the sake of the public
    service, independent of the hardship of the case, in asking
    you to _cause an inquiry_ to be made into the reason
    of a public servant being dismissed after twelve years of
    service, and, in the mean time, to order the dismissal to be
    suspended till the inquiry is made.

    “If you would get one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury to
    hear Mr. Ansell’s statement, he will, I am sure, be able to
    satisfy himself as to the truth of what I have stated, and
    be able to enlighten you as to what has taken place in the
    office of the Mint. With many apologies for troubling you,

                “I remain, yours faithfully,
                     (Signed)       “KINNAIRD.

       “THE RT. HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, &c., &c.”

On the 30th December your Lordship wrote me a letter, in which you
said:—

“Mr. Gladstone writes me, ‘I have at once transmitted your letter to
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whose cognisance it belongs.’ I
have written to Mr. Lowe.”

Your Lordship again wrote on the 5th January, 1869, enclosing a letter

    FROM THE RT. HON. ROBERT LOWE TO THE RT. HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.
                      “_11, Downing St., Whitehall, 4th January, 1869._

    “MY DEAR LORD,

    “Mr. Ansell, in whom you have interested yourself, is, I
    have ascertained, a temporary clerk in the Mint, and the
    duration of his employment must accordingly depend on the
    necessities of the Department, of which the Master of the
    Mint is the only judge. The Treasury could not, therefore,
    interfere with Mr. Graham’s discretion in such a case.

    “I have, however, felt it my duty to make a particular
    inquiry as to the nature of the expectations held out to
    Mr. Ansell when his engagement commenced, and which you
    have been informed amounted to a promise that he was to get
    a permanent employment; but I am informed by the Master of
    the Mint—the only person who could, I imagine, have made
    such a promise—in the most positive terms, that he never
    gave Mr. Ansell, either before or after he went to the Mint,
    any encouragement to look for a permanent engagement. Under
    these circumstances, whatever the merits of Mr. Ansell may
    be, I am afraid I cannot undertake so serious a proceeding
    as to interfere with the course which the Master of the Mint
    may consider it proper to pursue in this matter.

                   “Believe me,
                        “Yours truly,
                (Signed)      “ROBERT LOWE.

       “LORD KINNAIRD.”

On the 6th January, 1869, I, by the advice of your Lordship, took the
opinion of eminent counsel, before whom I laid proofs of my statements.
Counsel advised me to draw up a Memorial, and ask your Lordship to
present it to the Treasury. This I did, with the assistance of a
well-known solicitor, who used infinite pains. The Memorial was as
follows:—

    “TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF
             HER MAJESTY’S TREASURY.

    “THE Humble Memorial of GEORGE FREDERICK ANSELL,
     of No. 27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, Analytical Chemist.

    “Sheweth as follows:—

    “In the month of October, 1856, the Master of the Mint
    called upon your Memorialist, and offered to nominate him
    to a position in Her Majesty’s Mint, and promised that he
    should be promoted if he succeeded in effecting the object
    the Master of the Mint had in view, which was to reform
    certain abuses which prevailed extensively in the coining
    department, in which there was then, and had been for some
    time previously, great waste, owing to the carelessness
    and peculations of those employed in conducting some of
    the processes in that department. There were also great
    irregularities and disobedience of orders and disregard
    of regulations. All those circumstances combined, caused
    considerable loss in the operation of coining, and the
    Master of the Mint informed your Memorialist that he
    understood it to be the intention of the Government to put
    the coinage out to contract, unless it could be conducted
    with greater economy in the Mint. Upon the understanding and
    in the belief that he was to be promoted when any vacancy
    in a higher office should occur, your Memorialist accepted
    the offer made to him, and relinquished the professional
    pursuits he was engaged in prosecuting, and agreed to devote
    the whole of his time and energies to the service required
    of him. Consequently upon this, the Master of the Mint, in
    a communication dated the 29th of October, 1856, submitted
    a proposition for the consideration of your Lordships’
    predecessors in the following terms:—

    “‘Under this designation I desire to introduce a young man
    recommended by scientific or technical information available
    in coining, by energy of character, and by tried ability in
    the supervision of workmen—a faculty by no means common....
    I have been led to propose the name of Mr. George Frederick
    Ansell as temporary clerk. Mr. Ansell was educated under
    Dr. Hofmann, and acted for some years as his laboratory
    assistant. He has since been scientific director in the
    Royal Panopticon, in Leicester Square, which was lately
    broken up. He appears to be a person of superior education
    and ability, and great activity and vigour of character,
    and, as I have been assured, has shown much discretion in
    the management of both pupils and workmen. Mr. Ansell, if
    appointed, would be placed in the rolling room, and have
    charge of putting the bars into work.’

    “On the 4th of November, 1856, your Lordships’ predecessors
    approved of the recommendation of the Master of the Mint,
    and on the 12th of November, 1856, your Memorialist entered
    upon his service. Before taking active duty, he inquired
    of the Master what latitude was allowed in case of any
    difference of weight between the bullion given to the men
    and the return. The Master replied that he did not know, but
    that there had always been considerable loss in the room
    your Memorialist was to enter. Your Memorialist assured the
    Master that there ought to be no loss, and stated that if he
    were supported he would demonstrate it. The Master of the
    Mint promised to give your Memorialist full authority, and
    also assured him that he might depend upon promotion if he
    were able to carry out what he had stated.

    “In a very short time after your Memorialist had entered
    upon his duties the losses were stopped, the men became
    obedient to orders, and all irregularities ceased; but it
    was not without exciting considerable ill-will amongst some
    of the men and officers employed that your Memorialist
    succeeded in accomplishing the ends in view.

    “Previously to your Memorialist entering upon his duties,
    peculation had been of almost daily occurrence. In
    consequence of the various modes by which the bullion was
    then weighed, it was almost impossible to detect dishonesty.
    In addition to this, the blank coins were so imperfectly
    made, that it had always been necessary to reject and return
    to the melting-pot quantities ranging from 15 to 35 per cent.

    “During the six years, 1851 to 1856, the average loss by
    coining, as it was termed, was as follows:—

        In gold,   £581·420 per million pounds sterling.
        In silver, £271·000 per million ounces coined.

    In addition to this, a loss was incurred in the melting,
    owing to the use of oil in the processes of rolling and
    cutting out, and the average of this loss during the same
    period was:—

        In gold,   £356·330 per million pounds sterling.
        In silver, £210·750 per million ounces coined.

    “During the same period, the average number of blank coins
     rejected was:—

        In gold,   17·92 per cent.
        In silver, 25·00    ”

    “The Master of the Mint entrusted solely to your Memorialist
    the task of carrying out such reforms, and taking such steps
    as your Memorialist considered necessary to put a stop to
    the peculations and waste above mentioned.
    “The result of such superintendence by your Memorialist
    has been that, during the years from 1857 to 1866, instead
    of any loss by coining, there has been, on the average, a
    positive gain, inasmuch as the gain on gold amounted to
    £20 per million sterling, whilst the loss in silver was
    reduced from £271 per million ounces, to £55 per million
    ounces. During the same period, the average number of blanks
    rejected has been, in gold, only 2·07 per cent., and in
    silver, only 1·00 per cent. The average loss by melting was
    also reduced to the following:—

        In gold, £271·900 per million pounds sterling.
        In silver, £57·900 per million ounces coined.

    “The following tabular statement, compiled from the
    official books of the Royal Mint, shews the average loss by
    peculation during the six years 1851-1857, and the saving
    effected under your Memorialist’s management during the
    years 1857-1866:—

    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                 Coining Department.                             |
    +-------+----------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
    |       |          |  Absolute  |   Averages per  |Absolute saving|
    | Date. |  Money   |  loss by   |    £1,000,000   |  effected by  |
    |       | coined.  |peculations.|     coined.     |   stopping    |
    |       |          |            |                 |  peculation.  |
    +-------+----------+------------+--------+--------+---------------+
    |       |          |            |  Loss. |  Gain. |               |
    |       |          |            +--------+--------+               |
    |       |     £    |     £      |   £    |   £    |       £       |
    |1851-57|40,345,185|  20,030    |  491   |   —    |       —       |
    |1857-66|50,894,385|    Nil.    |  Nil.  |   26   |     27,736    |
    +-------+----------+------------+--------+--------+---------------+
    +------------------------------------------+
    |              Melting Department.         |
    +-------+--------------+-------------------+
    |       | Average loss |  Absolute average |
    | Date. |  by melting  |  saving effected  |
    |       |per £1,000,000|  by the disuse of |
    |       |    coined.   |oil on the scissel.|
    +-------+--------------+-------------------+
    |       |              |                   |
    |       |              |                   |
    |       |      £       |        £          |
    |1851-57|     261      |        —          |
    |1857-66|     233      |        28         |
    +-------+--------------+-------------------+

“The result from the above table is that in the period 1851-1857
£40,345,185 in gold was coined at a loss to the Government by
peculations and waste in coining of upwards of £20,000, whilst by the
gains and savings effected by your Memorialist, amounting to £545 in
each £1,000,000 coined, the gain to the Government during the years
1857-1866 amounted to £27,736, and this in the gold alone, and quite
independently of the saving effected in the coining of silver.

“In the year 1857, shortly after the appointment of your Memorialist,
there was a great demand and pressure on the Bank of England for gold
coin, and the endeavour to supply this unusual demand necessitated
great exertion on the part of the Mint. The Master of the Mint placed
the matter entirely under the direction of your Memorialist, who was
the means of producing, without a single instance of loss by peculation
and with an average of only 6 per cent. of rejected blanks, 1,100
journey weights of sovereigns per week, being more by 200 journey
weights than had ever before been obtained. This extra production
undoubtedly contributed largely to meet the demand for gold and relieve
the pressure on the Bank during the monetary crisis of that year.

“In the year 1858, during the temporary absence on leave of the Master
Melter, the Master of the Mint directed your Memorialist to conduct
the melting department, and during such superintendence of it your
Memorialist reduced the then ordinary loss in melting by no less than
33 per cent.

“In the month of August of that year the Master of the Mint recommended
your Memorialist’s salary to be increased from £120 per annum to £220.

“In the year 1859 a large quantity of brittle gold had been brought to
the Mint, and up to that time that kind of gold had been invariably
rejected by the Royal Mint, as well as by the Mints of other countries,
under the impression that it was totally unfit for coining in
consequence of its extreme brittleness. Your Memorialist endeavoured
to turn this gold to account, and succeeded in coining it; and upwards
of a quarter of a million sterling of this coined gold was sent to the
Bank of England, and the coins proved to be so tough that they could
not be broken by the ordinary means. For this service your Memorialist
received from the Master of the Mint a letter expressing his ‘most
grateful thanks,’ and upon his recommendation, in the month of October,
1860, a gratuity of £100 was awarded to your Memorialist by your
Lordships’ predecessors, and in the year 1861 your Memorialist’s
salary was raised from £220 to £250 per annum. Your Memorialist also
originated and developed the plans by which the new bronze money was
coined previous to its issue in 1860. Those plans are still followed,
and in consequence of your Memorialist’s investigations of the
subject, Messrs. Heaton and Messrs. Grenfell were referred to him for
information and assistance by the Master of the Mint.

“In the year 1862 your Memorialist, at the request of the Master of
the Mint, undertook the destruction of all the old copper coinage,
and destroyed from 10 to 16 tons per diem, at the comparatively small
cost of 8_s._ 4_d._ per ton. Before this work was put under your
Memorialist’s charge, scarcely so much as 2 tons per diem had ever been
destroyed; and in the Paris Mint, where a similar process had been in
operation, the cost had never been less than £10 per ton.

“Down to this period, offers had been made to your Memorialist on
several occasions of situations unconnected with the Royal Mint,
at a much higher salary than he was in receipt of there, but your
Memorialist was induced to decline them in consequence of the
assurances of the Master of the Mint that his position there should
be greatly improved. In the month of November, 1863, the office of
Assistant Coiner became vacant. No one, so far as your Memorialist
is aware, had performed so many or such important services in the
establishment as he had done; but his claims were ignored, and the
Master of the Mint, passing over him, appointed his own brother, Mr.
John Graham (who was considerably junior in the service), to the vacant
post.

“Upon the death of the late Mr. Barton, Deputy-Master of the Mint, your
Memorialist applied to the Right Honourable the then First Lord for
promotion, but he appointed Mr. Fremantle, his private secretary, to
Mr. Barton’s office, and no other change or promotion was made.

“On the 28th of September, 1868, your Memorialist received his
dismissal from the service, in the following letter from the Master of
the Mint—

                           ‘_Royal Mint, 28th September, 1868._
    ‘DEAR SIR,

    ‘I regret to have to inform you that it is not in my power
    to continue your present engagement as an extra officer in
    the coining department while the Mint is only so partially
    occupied as it has been for some time past. Your assistance
    will not therefore be required beyond the 31st of December
    next.
                 ‘I remain,
                      ‘Faithfully yours,
                                   ‘THO. GRAHAM.

      ‘G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.’

“Notwithstanding the intimation conveyed by the above letter that
your Memorialist’s services were no longer required in consequence of
the coining department being only partially occupied, it is the fact
that another gentleman, who was an extra clerk in the bronze store
department, and considerably your Memorialist’s junior (but who is
private secretary to Mr. John Graham, the brother of the Master), has
been appointed to the same post as your Memorialist held; and it is
also the fact that the Mint is now executing a new coinage of about
£5,000,000 of gold, and your Memorialist believes that it will be
found, on investigation, that losses have again occurred, upon this
and the last preceding coinage, which was not superintended by your
Memorialist.

“Upon a reference to the communications to the Treasury from the Master
of the Mint, under the dates of

    29th October, 1856,
     6th August, 1857,
    17th August, 1858,
     7th and 8th July, 1860,

it will be seen that your Memorialist’s services have been referred
to by the Master of the Mint in terms of high approbation, and your
Memorialist can confidently assert that his dismissal has not been
owing to any want of efficiency or attention to the public service on
his part; and, on the other hand, others who have less effectually
served the public interest, and have been junior to your Memorialist in
the service, have been promoted over his head. The Master of the Mint
at one time offered to recommend your Memorialist to an appointment in
the Mint at Hong Kong; but the climate would have been unsuitable to
your Memorialist and his family, and he was compelled to decline it.

“Your Memorialist has spent twelve of the best years of his life in the
public service at an insignificant salary, and has effected savings to
the public to the amount of £35,000 and upwards in the gold coinage
alone, besides many other savings in other branches of his department,
and has now been dismissed without, as he humbly submits, any adequate
reason at three months’ notice (which your Memorialist is advised
is insufficient according to the usual course of law) and without
compensation of any kind.

    “Your Memorialist therefore humbly prays your Lordships to
      cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances stated by
      your Memorialist, and his special services in connection
      with the Royal Mint, and that your Lordships will be
      pleased to continue his services in some other department
      in which they may be made available, or to award some
      compensation to him in consideration of the considerable
      sums he has been the means of saving to the public during
      the course of his employment at the Royal Mint, and of his
      abrupt dismissal by the Master without any just cause.

                                            “GEORGE F. ANSELL.

       “_10th February, 1869._”

On the 19th February, your Lordship enclosed to me the following
letter:—

    FROM C. RIVERS WILSON, ESQ., TO THE HON. A. KINNAIRD, M.P.
               “_11, Downing Street, Whitehall, 15th February, 1869._

    “DEAR SIR,

    “The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received the Memorial
    from Mr. Ansell, forwarded in your letter of Saturday,
    and has caused it at once to be laid before the Board of
    Treasury, in compliance with the wish expressed by Lord
    Kinnaird.
                “I am, dear Sir,
                      “Yours faithfully,
              (Signed)       “C. RIVERS WILSON.

       “HON. ARTHUR KINNAIRD, M.P.”

On the 22nd February, 1869, Mr. John Graham died, thus leaving the
office of Chief Coiner vacant. I immediately informed your Lordship
of this unexpected event, and you, on the 23rd, wrote to the Hon. A.
Kinnaird, asking that gentleman to go immediately and see Mr. Lowe,
and to take him a copy of my book of testimonials; and on the 24th
your Lordship wrote to the Hon. A. Kinnaird, asking him to see Mr.
Gladstone, in whose gift the office of Chief Coiner is. On the 27th
February, 1869, a friend suggested that I should “ask Lord Kinnaird to
mediate between Mr. Graham and myself.” Your Lordship permitted me to
make that suggestion, and wrote as follows:—

        THE RT. HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.,
            TO THOMAS GRAHAM, ESQ., F.R.S., D.C.L.
               “_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., March 1st, 1869._

    “SIR,

    “I do not know whether you are aware that Mr. G. F. Ansell,
    by my advice, has presented a Memorial to the Lords of the
    Treasury, praying for compensation for his dismissal from
    the Mint.

    “I considered the case so hard that a gentleman who had
    served the country for about twelve years, ably and
    efficiently, as shown by letters from the Treasury and from
    yourself, should be dismissed on three months’ notice,
    that I resolved to bring this case before Parliament, but
    before doing so I thought it best that Mr. Ansell should
    memorialise the Treasury, stating his case and past services.

    “Since the Memorial was sent in, I have heard of the loss
    you have sustained, and consequently have applied for the
    appointment for Mr. Ansell to the office lately filled by
    your brother.

    “I think it right you should know this, and I am not
    without hopes that my recommendation may meet with your
    concurrence, as though I am aware that you had at one
    time some difference with Mr. Ansell, yet he has at the
    same time told me of many kindnesses he has received from
    you—shown also on a late occasion, when you gave him a
    very good testimonial on his being a candidate for a Gas
    Inspectorship, which proves the high opinion you have of Mr.
    Ansell’s qualifications.

    “He has assured me that, should he get the appointment, he
    will act most cordially with you, and be most anxious to
    forget all that is past.

    “I am prepared, on hearing from you that you concur in Mr.
    Ansell’s appointment, to write to Mr. R. Lowe to tell him
    that I wish the Memorial withdrawn.

                    “Your obedient servant,
                      (Signed)       “KINNAIRD.

    “T. GRAHAM, ESQ., F.R.S., D.C.L.,
       “Master of the Royal Mint, London.”

Envelope marked “Private,”

    FROM T. GRAHAM, ESQ., F.R.S., D.C.L., TO
        THE RT. HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.
                         “_4, Gordon Square, 3rd March, 1869._

    “MY LORD,

     “On returning from Scotland I find your letter of the 1st
      instant, the receipt of which I beg to acknowledge.

           “I beg to remain, my Lord,
                 “Your Lordship’s most obedient servant,
                              (Signed)      “THO. GRAHAM.

    “THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD.”

On the 6th March, 1869, your Lordship wrote me to the effect that Mr.
Lowe had stated that he “still entertained a belief that Mr. Ansell was
never on the staff of the Mint, and he cannot force a supernumerary on
Mr. Graham, but he HAS SENT THE MEMORIAL TO MR. GRAHAM TO ANSWER.” I
feel that the Right Hon. Robert Lowe thus committed a singular act of
injustice to me. Those who will read the Memorial cannot but be struck
with the fact that my sole complaint is against Mr. Thomas Graham,
yet Mr. Lowe remits the case to the accused for _his_ decision. Such
an act is a remarkable comment on the promise of the Government _that
those who would faithfully do their duty, irrespective of their nominal
position, should be rewarded_.

This injustice induced your Lordship to take further steps, and you
sent me the following letter:—

    FROM THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE TO
        HON. A. KINNAIRD, M.P.
                                            “_March 5th, 1869._

    “MY DEAR KINNAIRD,

    “I am not sure whether the arrangements to be made at the
    Mint will place any vacancy at my disposal, but if they
    do I will carefully consider the subject of your letter
    respecting Mr. Ansell.

                “Ever yours sincerely,
                  (Signed)      “W. E. GLADSTONE.

    “THE HON. A. KINNAIRD.”

On the receipt of this letter your Lordship directed me to send a copy
of my “Treatise on Coining” to Mr. A. West for Mr. Gladstone. Up to
this date the case had been urged upon Mr. Gladstone, not only by your
Lordship, but in addition by five Cabinet Ministers and five members of
the House of Commons; yet there was, as in the case of Mr. Disraeli,
some mysterious cause why I was defeated, and on the 27th of March,
1869, I received the following:—

    FROM THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY TO G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.
    (_No. 3727, 24th March_).
                           “_Treasury Chambers, 27th March, 1869._
    “SIR,

    “In reply to your Memorial of the 10th of February last,
    I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s
    Treasury to acquaint you that my Lords have made inquiry
    into the circumstances which led to the cessation of your
    employment as a temporary clerk at the Royal Mint, and they
    do not find that they are such as in their opinion would
    justify them in awarding you any compensation in consequence
    thereof.

    “I am further desired to state that your removal from the
    service was entirely within the discretion of the Master of
    the Mint, who distinctly denies ever having held out to you
    any expectation of promotion or of permanent employment; and
    that your statements as to the value of your services at the
    Mint are not corroborated by Mr. Graham.

    “In conclusion, I am desired to add, with regard to your
    application that your services may be continued in some
    other department, that my Lords have no appointment at their
    disposal to which they can nominate you.

                 “I am, Sir,
                       “Your obedient servant,
                            (Signed)       “WILLIAM LAW,”
       “GEORGE F. ANSELL, ESQ.,
    “27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, W.C.”           “Exᵃᵈ.

Whereupon your Lordship took steps, which I will explain presently;
but I beg first to append a few extracts from my diary, written day
by day at a time when, had my confidence in Mr. Graham been shaken, I
could have induced him to make a written agreement. I instead placed
in him so profound a confidence that I placed my future, _as he knew_,
entirely in his keeping.

“_9th March, 1858._

“I expressed an opinion that in the event of the Master being ill, or
seeing fit to resign, I should be summarily dismissed the Mint, and
that the —— and —— would come into power. I also related the grounds
for my opinion, and the Master said that ‘the Treasury were too much
awake to all affairs to admit of my dismissal or removal, or of such
a change at any time under any circumstances; and that, beside, Mr.
Sterry was now just preparing his last Report of the waste per quarter,
and which would effectually close —— and ——’s chance.’”

“_9th July, 1858._

“I showed the Master, and he read Mr. Halder Wood’s letter. I sought
his advice, and he advised me to remain at the Mint, promising that,
so soon as Mr. Brande or Mr. Buckle died, I should be placed in their
position, for the Treasury would not make a place for me. I wrote this
to Mr. Wood, who soon replied, offering me a place which was next to
himself, and advising me ‘not to trust Graham’s promises.’”

“_September 2nd, 1857._

“A note from Mr. F. Versmann, declining a position which I had placed
at his disposal under these circumstances. Mr. Corcoran offered to
introduce me to Mr. Payne, who subsequently offered to engage me on the
following terms: I was to attend three days a week at Farnham, where
I was to have a residence and £250 a year. The other three days I was
at perfect liberty to use and to spend in London, in no way tied to
Mr. Payne. I consulted Mr. Graham. He promised most faithfully that I
should be ‘above all,’ and advised me to decline Mr. Payne’s offer. I
did decline it, and to prove to Mr. Graham that the offer was _bona
fide_, I handed to him Mr. Payne’s letter, with a request that he would
recommend a fit person, and I would introduce him. Mr. Graham gave
the letter to Mr. Versmann, who in his note says he declines because
‘I am sorry indeed that Mr. Payne finds it necessary for the chemist
to reside on the spot; but, after all, I am sure I am right in not
giving up my chances in London.’ Mr. Corcoran has at this day a perfect
recollection of the whole matter, and writes me ‘I believe you would
have accepted, but you had a prospect of a certain position in the
Royal Mint.’”

“_October 5th, 1859._

“In a conversation about my position, which had arisen from the
opposition offered to me, the Master said, ‘Yes, that is the
difficulty, you see the Treasury will not give you a position while we
have so much old lumber in the way of officers who do nothing.... And
in truth I will tell you I had hoped that the Act of last session would
have rendered retirement at sixty-five compulsory, and then I would
have placed you in a far higher position in the coining department; but
that clause was unwisely withdrawn, and here I am, still encumbered
by people utterly useless.’ I said, ‘Is it probable that I shall have
to wait for my promotion till the death or retirement of one of my
so-called ‘superior officers,’ or shall I now stand a chance of a more
immediate position of safety?’ He replied with great earnestness, ‘It
is a year since anything was done for you, so I will do something for
you before the end of early winter, and you stand a far better chance
now that Sir Charles Trevelyan is gone from the Treasury, for he always
stood in your way, because his own nominations had turned out so very
disastrously to this place; but I will promise you I will set you
firmly directly the men return to London—directly the Ministers are in
town.’”

_22nd April, 1869._

Being determined to find the reason why I failed to be appointed, you,
as stated in your Lordship’s letter, called on Mr. Graham, at the Mint.
Mr. Graham spoke of his desire to serve Mr. Ansell, and offered “to
appoint him to the position from which Mr. C. W. Goodwin was to be
retired with an increased salary.”

I had in writing begged your Lordship to allow me to decline this
offer, because I saw through the malevolent malice which induced it,
and enclosed a statement with extracts from my diary.

Four days later, it appears that your Lordship called again on Mr.
Thomas Graham, in the Mint, where he was in consultation with Dr. Lyon
Playfair, M.P., and Mr. C. W. Fremantle, when you, as stated in your
letter, read and heard read Mr. Graham’s letter to the Treasury, and
your Lordship wrote to Mr. Lowe in relation to this interview with Mr.
Graham, and sent me Mr. Lowe’s reply.

                       “_Downing Street, Whitehall, April 29th, 1869._

    “DEAR LORD KINNAIRD,

    “Had Mr. Graham consulted me, I should have advised him not
    to produce any documents to you and Dr. Lyon Playfair, for
    the simple reason that I have already decided the case, and
    that it ought not to be opened without my consent. That
    consent I feel myself bound to withhold. I cannot permit
    any one in this office to act as a Court of Appeal on what
    I have decided. I have already given to your Lordship such
    explanations as the case seemed to require, and I have
    nothing to add to it.

                    “I am, my lord,
                            “Faithfully yours,
                            (Signed)      “ROBERT LOWE.

      “THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD.”

    THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., TO
        THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOWE.

                  “_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., May 4th, 1869._

    “DEAR MR. LOWE,

    “The only explanation in re Ansell which I received from
    you, was that Mr. Ansell’s Memorial, which complained of Mr.
    Graham’s conduct, had been remitted to that gentleman for an
    answer, and that, after receiving it, you considered further
    inquiry was unnecessary.

    “I then asked to see the answer, and was refused, though, at
    the same time you _assured me_ that it did not reflect
    in the least on Mr. Ansell’s character. When I did see Mr.
    Graham’s answer, I was struck with the animus which pervaded
    its tone, and can hardly understand how such a difference
    ‘between us’ can exist as to what _does_ and _does
    not_ reflect on a man’s character. That the impression
    conveyed to my mind by the document is the natural one,
    is corroborated by the declaration of Dr. Lyon Playfair
    on reading it; for he declared, ‘most strongly, that if
    published, it would prevent Mr. Ansell obtaining, not only
    any official, but any other employment.’ And certainly,
    if the statements therein be true, such a result would be
    deserved; however, the document bears on the face of it
    so manifest a perversion of facts, and exhibits such a
    malevolent feeling towards Mr. Ansell on the part of Mr.
    Graham, on _whose word alone_ you have ‘decided the
    case,’ that I am satisfied that the publication of this
    document would rather tell in Mr. Ansell’s favour than
    otherwise. I pointed out to you that the appointment by Mr.
    Graham of his brother, whose unfortunate habits were well
    known, to a position of great responsibility in the Mint,
    and the peculations and losses which, by Mr. Graham’s own
    admission, had taken place, demanded a special inquiry into
    the management, and however much I might wish to screen a
    man of Mr. Graham’s scientific acquirements, I do not feel
    inclined to follow your advice and ‘ask Mr. Gladstone to
    give Mr. Ansell another appointment,’ instead of exposing
    the mismanagement of the Mint, and I cannot understand how,
    if you believe Mr. Graham’s answer to be reliable, you could
    recommend me to take such a course.

                      “Yours faithfully,
                         (Signed)      “KINNAIRD.

      “THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOWE, Downing Street.”

    THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., TO
        THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE.
                    “_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., May 4th, 1869._

    “DEAR MR. GLADSTONE,

    “Since I saw you on the subject of Mr. Ansell’s appointment
    to the vacant office at the Mint, I have seen Mr. Graham’s
    answer to Mr. Ansell’s Memorial, and I earnestly hope that
    you will not think of filling up the vacant office without a
    full inquiry into the management of that Department, which
    I consider is imperatively called for, and I do not think
    that in making that appointment you would be justified in
    being guided by the advice of the Master of the Mint, who
    formerly appointed to that office his brother, whose drunken
    habits were so notorious as to render him quite unfit to be
    continued in such a charge.

    “I see no reason to doubt Mr. Ansell’s statements that great
    peculations did take place at the Mint, as well as waste
    in coining. This is admitted by the Master himself, and
    clearly brought out in the Memorial of Mr. Ansell, who was
    employed for twelve years as supernumerary, and received
    an acknowledgment more than once from the Treasury in
    consequence of the saving he had effected. Mr. Graham, it is
    true, denies the facts, and endeavours to blast Mr. Ansell’s
    character, and thus to throw discredit on the evidence Mr.
    Ansell could give.

    “Mr. Graham further states in his answer that Mr. Ansell
    was dismissed on the complaint of his brother, while the
    letter of dismissal following immediately on Mr. Ansell’s
    application to Mr. Disraeli to be put on the permanent staff
    bears, that it was in consequence of the ‘coining department
    being so partially occupied,’ though at the same time a new
    coinage had been ordered.

    “Mr. Graham’s answer bears on the face of it such a
    perversion of facts that it appears to me an inquiry is
    absolutely necessary, and I hope you will not oppose a
    Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the management of the
    Mint, unless some other mode of inquiry is adopted.

                   “Believe me,
                          “Yours faithfully,
                                  (Signed)       “KINNAIRD.

      “THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE.”

Your Lordship will perhaps allow me to bring to your remembrance that
Mr. Thomas Graham died on the 16th of September, 1869, many months
after you had made great exertions in my favour. This is the more
necessary because some have thought that Mr. Graham was not aware of
my charges against him, whereas he had a full knowledge of all that
was passing, and his removal made it more difficult for me to prove
my statements or to obtain justice. It had been, I believe, your
Lordship’s intention to allow “my case,” as it has been called, to
go into abeyance till, on the occasion of your motion in the House
of Lords for a Committee to inquire into the management of the Mint,
others gratuitously attacked me, instead of replying to your Lordship
exact statements made on the 18th July, 1870, when you once more
brought the subject of the Mint before the House of Lords. As that
debate became of personal interest to myself, I beg to quote your
Lordship’s concluding speech.


“LORD KINNAIRD: I am quite ready, as far as Professor Graham is
concerned, to acquit him individually and personally from anything
improper; all I have to say with regard to Professor Graham is that
he was not a fit person for the office, as he continued the jobbery
which he found in existence, and which had prevailed there ever since
the Mint was a Government office. He appointed his own brother, a
calico printer, to an office for which he was entirely unfit, not
only on the ground of general incompetence, but from his well-known
habits of intemperance. I am quite ready to admit that the bulk of the
information I possess upon the subject is obtained from Mr. Ansell,
who was for many years employed by the Master of the Mint, and who, as
the returns show, succeeded in making even the gold coinage a paying
department, as it should be, instead of a losing department, as it
is; but my statements are also founded on, and confirmed by, returns
presented to both Houses of Parliament. Mr. Ansell also put a stop to
peculation, and made himself very unpopular among the officials in
consequence. Mr. Ansell gave up very valuable appointments in order to
fulfil his duties at the Mint, under the repeated promise of promotion
when a vacancy should occur; and I am afraid I am responsible for
what is called his dismissal, for, when I applied to the late Prime
Minister for his promotion, Mr. Graham, who, in common with the other
officials, feared an exposure from Mr. Ansell’s promotion, wrote him a
letter of dismissal as follows:—

                                 ‘_Royal Mint, September 28, 1868._
    ‘DEAR SIR,

    ‘I regret to have to inform you that it is not in my power
    to continue your present engagement as an extra officer in
    the coining department, while the Mint is only so partially
    occupied as it has been for some time past. Your assistance
    will not, therefore, be required beyond the 31st of December
    next.

                 ‘I remain, faithfully yours,
                                     ‘THO. GRAHAM.

       ‘G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.’

“After this dismissal the profit ceased and the loss recurred. I
accordingly applied to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer for an inquiry, but I was treated rather summarily, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said he deprecated any inquiry. Only two
or three months, however, after giving him that notice, and while he
was still engaged in the Mint, Mr. Graham warmly recommended him for
the office of Gas Inspector to the Corporation of London, stating
that he was a well-informed practical chemist, and ‘a man of tried
integrity’—‘a man of _tried integrity_!’ Now, within three months after
the Master of the Mint dismissed this officer—who, as the returns will
show, had saved the country some thousands—he writes this testimonial:—

    ‘I beg to express the very favourable opinion which I
    entertain of Mr. G. F. Ansell’s qualifications for the
    office of Inspector of Gas to the Corporation of London. Mr.
    Ansell is a well-informed practical chemist, and has given
    much attention for several years to gas. He is the inventor
    of an ingenious instrument for indicating the presence of
    fire-damp in the atmosphere of mines, which is much admired
    by scientific and practical men. Mr. Ansell is also a man
    of tried integrity and great energy. From what I have seen
    of him at the Mint I would say that he would devote himself
    entirely and conscientiously to the work of the new office,
    if appointed.’

“THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Who signed that letter?

“LORD KINNAIRD: Thomas Graham. And, notwithstanding this high testimony
to the value of his services, this man was dismissed because he knew
too much of what was going on in the Mint. I challenge the Mint
authorities to prove a single statement in his book to be false. If
they can, why do they not contradict him? They dare not. Mr. Ansell’s
book has been some months before the public, and if the Mint could
have challenged his statements, which are very damaging, they would
certainly have done so. I challenge contradiction. I am very glad the
noble Lord has given me the opportunity of making this statement with
regard to Mr. Graham, a talented man, but quite unable to cope with the
clever men about him, unaided by Mr. Ansell. Now that Mr. Ansell has
been dismissed, you see what is the result. The noble Lord has told
your Lordships of reforms which have been made at the Mint; but I can
assure him I expect little good to result from those reforms, for the
very men who then had charge of these departments, and who permitted
the peculations and mismanagement which Mr. Ansell stopped, are the
men who are now promoted to the chief management of the operative
departments of the Mint. I hope, therefore, the matter will not be
allowed to drop, for I am sure there is no department in this or any
other country more corrupt than the Mint.”

    “Motion (by leave of the House) _withdrawn_.”—
    (_House of Lords, Monday 18th July, 1870._ Hansard’s Report)

    I beg to express my great obligation to your Lordship for
    so complete a determination to obtain justice for me as
    you have exhibited, and which has required not only labour
    given ungrudgingly, but time, which I am sure would have
    been of inestimable value to others. My power to thank is
    weak, but I am entirely grateful. I am also obliged to your
    Lordship for sending me a copy of Hansard’s Report, which
    I, in accordance with your Lordship’s permission, print
    elsewhere, but reserve its conclusion as a fitting finish
    to this statement, which I submit as a true epitome of my
    unfortunate—for myself—connection with the Royal Mint.

                 I have the honour to remain,
                            My Lord,
          Most gratefully your Lordship’s obedient and obliged servant,
                                                    GEORGE F. ANSELL.

    THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., F.R.G.S.
        Lord-Lieutenant of Perthshire, &c., &c., &c.




INDEX.


    Accounts of the Royal Mint, 14-15, 36, 83, 84,
                                85, 94, 102, 103,
                                104, 106, 107, 115,
                                136, 142, 149, 155, 173.
    Acts of Parliament relating to the Coinage, 3, 36, 56, 71,
                                                72, 73, 109, 124,
                                                150, 157, 159, 166.
    Adjusting of Fillets, 9, 19, 20, 22,
                          23, 25, 27, 29,
                          31, 32, 42, 112-113.
    Alloy, Copper is used as, 4, 6, 7, 8,
                              13, 21, 31, 46,
                              48, 49, 53-56, 58,
                              82, 86, 87, 138,
                              141, 142, 143, 157-159.
      ” Extra, 49, 136, 137, 138, 141.
      ” Impurities contained in, 6, 13-14, 81.
      ” The best, for Coinage purposes, 49, 81, 157, 158.
      ”  ”  Coining Dies, 81, 157.
    Analysis of Bullion, Advantages attending, 13-14, 81, 157-158.
    Annealing and Blanching, Debases Standard of Coinage, 31, 48, 49,
                                                          50, 53-56,
                                                          57, 58.
         ”    Furnace, 21, 48, 49,
                       57, 62, 74.
         ”    Loss occasioned by, 9, 21, 22, 31,
                              48, 49, 53-56, 57,
                              86, 92, 138, 161,
                              162.
    Ansell, George F., Diary of, 194-195.
       ”    Fire-damp Indicator, 182-183, 187, 193, 198.
    Ansell’s Standard Gauge, 23-25, 35.
    Antimony in Standard Gold attacks Iron, 19.
    Argyll, Duke of, ix., 166, 171, 198.
    Artists as regards Dies for Coining, 64, 67, 158, 168.
    Arts, Journal of the Society of, 66.
    Assay Pieces taken, 4, 7, 9, 10, 53-56.
      ”     ”    Weight of, 10, 56.
      ”   Proofs, 12, 13.
      ”   Reports, preservation of, 14, 54, 146.
      ”   Unreported Fractions, 127, 130, 142, 143.
    Assayers, Two Resident, suggested, 14, 81.
    Assaying Apparatus, Messrs Matthey, Johnson, and Co.’s, 12-13.
       ”     Cost of, 3, 13, 120-121, 122, 149.
       ”     Explanation of Process of, 10-14, 56.
       ”     Loss by, 53, 56, 102, 103, 149.
    Ayrton, Right Hon. A. S., 148, 152, 154, 165.

    Balance, Cotton’s Automaton, described, 16, 37-42, 48, 124.
       ”        ”     Bradshaw’s Improvements in, 40-42.
       ”        ”     Pilcher’s Improvements in, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42.
       ”     Napier’s, for Mint Office, 15, 16.
       ”     Short’s Improved, for Bullion, described, 16-18.
       ”     Testing the Accuracy of a, 16.
    Bank of England, v., 3, 36, 37, 51,
                         54, 55, 64, 65,
                         66, 70, 71, 101,
                         102, 103, 109, 110,
                         122, 123, 126, 150,
                         155, 156, 176, 185.
      ”   ”    ”     Imports Gold for Coining
                     and makes profit thereby, v., 3, 4, 126-127, 170.
    Bars, by Assay below standard fineness, 49, 53-56, 168.
     ”    Ends sheared from, 20, 92, 112, 113,
                             116, 136, 160, 161.
     ”    Proportion of Coined Money obtained from, 84, 92, 111, 112,
                                                   113, 114, 115, 117,
                                                   160, 161.
     ”    Rolling of, 18-25.
     ”    Used for Coining, Dimensions of, 9, 31, 74, 75.
     ”      ”         ”     Uniformity of, desirable, 9, 31, 49, 53.
    Barton, Sir John, 29, 31, 32.
    Barton’s Draw-Bench, 27-33.
    Barton, Mr. W. H., xvi., 29, 30, 56, 63, 86-87, 106, 172,
                             175, 182, 183, 184, 191.
    Becker, Mr. C., 25.
    Blanching and Annealing Blanks debases Gold Coinage, 31, 48, 49,
                                                  50, 53-56, 57, 58.
    Blanching, Effects of, 2, 48-49, 53-56-57, 58,
                           74, 75, 86, 92, 138, 143, 161.
    Blanks, Annealing and Blanching, debases
                      standard of Coinage, 31, 48, 49, 50,
                                           51, 53-56, 57, 58.
      ”     Drying of, by sawdust, 57-58.
      ”     Dumb, 46, 61-62.
      ”     Examination of, 35, 41, 42, 46, 50, 61, 70.
      ”     Filing the heavy, 42-46.
      ”     Weighing of Individual, 23, 31, 35-36, 37-42, 43, 108-110.
      ”     Weighing of Gold, 37, 42-44, 46.
    Boulton, Mr. Matthew, 61, 69, 169.
    Boulton’s Coining Press described, 59-61, 68, 69, 80, 169.
    Bradshaw, Mr. William, 40, 41.
    Brande, Mr. W. T., xv., 83, 120, 172,
                            176, 182, 195.
    Britt.—Brit., 75-76.
    Brittle Gold, Coining of, v., 6, 49-53, 98, 112, 176,
                                     180, 181, 185, 190.
        ”     ” Coins from, Distinctively Marked, 50.
    Brockages Imperfect Coins, 68-69, 70, 92, 161.
    Bronze Coinage, 9, 33, 64, 68, 73, 74-76, 93, 94, 118,
                    121, 129, 147, 162-165.
       ”     ” Loss of Profit on, 129, 147, 162-165.
       ”     ” Weight and Value of, 163, 164, 165.
    Bullion, Analysis of, 13-14, 81, 157-158.
    ” necessity for Analyses of, 13-14, 81.
    Bumping, Prevention of, 12.

    Chancellor of the Exchequer,
               as regards the Coinage, 3, 104, 120-121, 122-123-125,
                                       126, 127, 145, 146, 150-151,
                                       163, 164, 170, 188, 193, 196.
    Charcoal, its use when Melting Gold and Silver, 6, 8, 138-139.
    Chimney Chambers to _Condense_ volatilized
            Gold and Silver, 83, 88, 103, 104-105,
                             128, 145, 147, 162, 166-167.
    Clipping Coins (the edges of), 59, 62, 64, 125, 141.
    Coinage, Integrity and Accuracy of the, 14, 42-44, 53-56,
                                  70, 71-72, 123-126, 127, 157-159.
    Coinage, a Free, 3, 169.
       ”     Debasement of the, 31, 48, 49, 50, 53-56, 57, 58, 120-121,
                                122-123, 157-159.
       ”     Debates on the, 52, 72, 105, 106, 146-148, 149.
       ”     International, Commission on, 36, 117, 120.
    Coined Money, Annealing of, 50, 51, 52.
       ”     ”    Rate per cent. obtained from Bars, 20, 30, 44, 84,
                                                     89, 92, 107-115,
                                                    117, 140, 161,
                                                    176, 179.
       ”     ”    Weight and Value of Bronze, 68, 73, 162-163, 165.
       ”     ”    Weight and Value of Gold, 3, 36, 56, 68,
                                        70, 73, 90, 91,
                                        92, 96, 97, 111,
                                        112, 114, 117, 119,
                                        121, 123, 124.
       ”     ”    Weight and Value of Silver, 3, 56, 65, 68,
                                          71, 73, 132, 133,
                                         134, 135, 146, 147,
                                         149, 150, 154, 155,
                                         156, 161.
    Coining, Article on, vii., 4, 71.
       ”     by Contract, v., 127, 128.
       ”     Cost of, 42, 43, 44, 51,
                      70, 92, 115, 117,
                      118-120, 121-123,
                      130, 141, 149-150,
                      155, 161.
       ”     Early Methods of, 1-2.
       ”     Gold, Gain in weight by, 86, 87, 88, 89,
                                      90, 91, 92, 93,
                                      94, 95, 98, 99, 100,
                                      101-104, 145, 168,
                                      169, 173, 175, 178,
                                      184, 189, 190.
       ”     Gold, Loss of Weight by, 9, 16, 21, 22,
                                     31, 49, 51, 53,
                                     56-57, 82-83, 84-86,
                                     87-88, 89, 90, 91,
                                     92, 94, 95, 98, 99-104,
                                     117, 119-120, 122, 125,
                                     126, 129, 145, 173, 174,
                                     175, 176, 177-179, 180,
                                     184-189, 190.
       ”     Press, Description of Boulton’s, 58-61, 68,
                                              69, 80, 169.
       ”     Press requires improvements, 58, 61, 69-70, 169.
       ”     Proposal to fix the rate of Cost of, 115-123.
       ”     Royal Prerogative, 149, 150, 166.
       ”     Silver, Gain in Weight by, iv., 3, 95, 130, 131,
                                             146-148, 151, 160.
       ”       ”     Loss of Weight by, v., 16, 21, 22, 74,
                                            82, 95, 105, 106,
                                           126, 130, 131-134,
                                           139-140, 141, 142,
                                           143, 145-148, 149,
                                           151, 155, 161, 162,
                                           175, 184, 189.
    Coins, Amount of Legal Tender in, 68, 76, 151, 162, 166.
      ”    Cause of Cracked, 46, 61-62.
      ”    Diameter of, 63, 68.
      ”    Edges of Crenated, Milled, Grained, 2, 48, 59,
                                               61-62, 64, 80.
      ”      ”   Lettered, 2, 62-63.
      ”    Examination for Imperfect, 46, 62, 70.
      ”    Imperfect, Brockages, 68, 69, 70, 92, 161.
      ”    Incused, how produced, 69.
      ”    Pounding of, 35, 49, 53, 71-72, 73, 125, 167.
      ”    Protecting Edge is necessary to, 2, 46, 48, 62,
                                           64, 67, 158, 159.
      ”    Ringing of, 46, 62, 70.
      ”    Sweating of, 59, 125, 141.
      ”    Weighing of, after Coining, 39, 43, 45,
                                       70, 108-110.
      ”    Weight of Current and New, 36, 39, 66, 68,
                                      70, 71, 72, 73,
                                      123, 124, 167.
    Collar for Coining Milled, Lettered, 48, 59, 60, 61-62,
                                         63, 64, 67-68.
    Comber, Mr. P. F., 74.
    Copper Moneys, 68, 76, 157, 162, 164.
    Copper on Gold, Influence of Oxide of, 6, 49.
    ” is used as an Alloy, 4, 6, 7-8, 21, 46,
                           48, 49, 138.
    Corcoran, Mr. Bryan, 195.
    Corry, Mr. Montagu, 186.
    Cotton, Mr. William, 16, 37, 39,
                         41, 42, 124.
    Cotton’s Automaton Balance, 16, 37-42, 48, 124.
    Crenated or Milled Edge on Coined Money, 2, 48, 59,
                                             61-62, 64, 80.
    Cutting-out Press described, 2, 33-35, 169.

    Dies for Coining, 1, 50, 57, 59, 60,
                     64, 68, 76-81, 157,
                     158, 167.
    Differences in Weighing Bullion, 14-16, 89, 92, 104,
                                     127, 137, 138, 143,
                                     160-161, 176, 184.
    Difficulties in introducing Improvements, 9, 15, 40,
                                             44, 46, 51.
    Disraeli, Right Hon. B., 183-186-187, 191.
    Draw-bench, Description of the, 27-33.
        ”       Opposition to use of, 29-30, 31-32.
        ”       Proper mode of using, 32-33.

    Edge-Compressor, 46-48.
    Edge, Protecting, to Coins, necessity for, 2, 46, 48, 62,
                                              64, 67, 158, 159.
    Edinburgh, H.R.H. the Duke of, 183.
    Ends sheared from Bars, 20, 92, 112, 113,
                            116, 136, 160, 161.
    Engravings, Initial Letters to Illustrate, 5.
    European Mints, Reports upon, 9, 30, 34, 42, 44,
                                 55, 61, 74, 83, 99-100,
                                105, 106, 125, 147,
                                148, 168.
    Evelyn, John, 62.
    Exchequer, Chancellor of the,
              as regards the Coinage, 3, 104, 120-121, 122-125,
                                    126, 127, 145, 146, 150-151,
                                    163, 164, 170, 188, 193, 196.

    Fairbairn, Mr. W., xvi., 172.
    Fenton, Mr. William, 33.
    File, Pilcher’s, for reducing Heavy Blanks, 42-46, 176, 179, 180.
    Fillets, Adjusting of, 9, 19, 20, 22,
                          23, 25, 27, 29,
                          31, 32, 42, 112-113.
       ”    of uniform thickness, 25, 30-31.
    Fillets, Dumb, 46, 61-62, 89, 92, 112, 116.
       ”    Flatted, 25, 26, 27.
       ”    Rate per cent. of, obtained from Bars, 20, 92, 108,
                                              112-113, 116, 160-161.
       ”    Testing accuracy of, 22, 23-24.
    Fire-damp Indicator, 182, 183, 187, 193, 198.
    Flat end, explanation of term, 27.
    Flatting Mill described, 25, 26.
    Forbes, Mr. George, 64, 155.
    Fourpenny-pieces, Coinage of, required, 10.
    Fremantle, Mr. C. W., iii., iv., v., vii., 9, 14, 15, 30, 31,
                                              55, 56, 59, 72, 91,
                                              97, 99, 100, 102, 106,
                                             118, 125, 127, 128, 129,
                                             133, 135, 144, 147, 152,
                                             153, 154, 155, 164-165,
                                             168, 187, 191, 195.
    French War Indemnity, Weight of the, 71.
    Furnace, Annealing, 21, 48, 49, 57, 62, 74.

    Gauges used in Coining, 22, 23-25, 35.
    Gauging Mill, Description of, 22-24, 26-27, 30-31.
    Gausby, Mr. Robert, 93.
    Gibson, Mr. E. S., 37, 62.
    Gladstone, Right Hon. W. E., iii., viii., 76, 101, 115,
                                             187, 188, 192, 194.
    Goodwin, Mr. C. W., iii., 195.
    Gold, Annealing of, 22, 31, 48, 49, 50, 53-56, 57-58, 74.
      ”   Assay of Standard, described, 10-14, 53-56, 81, 122.
      ”   Brittle, Coining of, 6, 49-53, 98, 105, 112,
                              176, 180, 181, 185, 190.
      ”   Coin, when worn, invariably below standard, 48, 49,
                                                      53-56, 168.
      ”   Coinage, Statement showing details of, 89, 92.
      ”   Coining, Authority for, 3, 158, 166.
      ”   Coins, Weight and Value of Worn and Light, 53-56, 66, 67.
      ”   Copper is used to alloy, 4, 6, 7-8, 21,
                                  46, 48-49, 53-56.
      ”   Gain by Coining, 86, 87, 88-89, 90-91,
                           92, 93, 94, 95, 98,
                           99, 100, 101-104, 145,
                          168, 169, 173, 175, 178,
                          184, 189, 190.
      ”   Loss by Annealing, 21, 22, 31, 48,
                             49, 53-56, 57,
                             86, 92.
      ”    ”   Coining, 9, 16, 21, 22,
                       31, 49, 51, 53,
                       56-57, 82-83, 84-86,
                       87-88, 89, 90, 91,
                       92, 94, 95, 98, 99-104,
                      117, 119-120, 122, 125,
                      126, 129, 145, 173, 174,
                      175, 176, 177-179, 180,
                      184-189, 190.
      ”    ”   Melting, 86, 87, 96, 97,
                        98, 99-104, 105,
                       106, 145, 178, 184,
                       190.
      ”   Melting of, described, 5-7, 46, 53, 56,
                                 129, 144.
      ”   Price of Standard, 3, 55, 66, 67,
                            70, 73, 84, 120,
                            122, 130.
      ”   Refining of, 14, 49, 50, 52,
                       53, 81-82, 104, 108.
    Gold Standard, 3, 4, 36, 53-66,
                  70, 73, 84, 120.
      ”     ”     affected by Antimony, 14, 19, 49, 50,
                                        51, 176, 180,
                                       181, 185, 190.
      ”     ”     affected by Arsenic, 14, 49, 50, 51,
                                      176, 180, 181, 185, 190.
      ”     ”     affected by Lead, 6, 14, 49, 51, 81.
      ”     ”        ”     Mercury, 14, 81.
      ”     ”        ”     Osmium-Iridium, 81.
      ”     ”        ”     Oxide of Copper, 6, 49.
      ”     ”        ”     Palladium, 81.
      ”     ”        ”     Platinum, 81.
      ”     ”        ”     Tin, 14, 81.
      ”     ”        ”     Zinc, 6, 14.
      ”   Sweep recovered after Coinage of, 82, 83, 86,
                                            88, 90, 91, 93,
                                            98, 106-107.
      ”     ”       ”     Melting of, 96, 97, 98, 106-107.
      ”   Weight and Value of Coined, 56, 84, 90, 91,
                                      92, 96, 97, 106,
                                     111, 114, 121, 167,
                                     178, 190.
      ”   and Silver Refining of, 81-82, 104, 138, 160.
      ”   while at the Mint bears no interest, 126.
    Graham, Mr. John, 15, 44, 71, 94,
                      98, 108, 112, 163,
                      182, 185, 187, 191,
                      196, 197.
      ”     ”   Thomas, iii., iv., vii., viii.,
                         ix., xi., xv., xvi.,
                         50, 51, 54, 71,
                         83, 93, 118, 119,
                        144, 153, 154, 155,
                        164-165, 170, 172,
                        174, 180, 182, 183,
                        187, 193, 194, 195,
                        196, 197, 198.
    Graphite Pots for Melting, 5, 129.
    Granville, Right Hon. Earl, 166.

    Hatchett, Experiments of, 49, 157.
    Hatchett, Mr. C., 49, 157.
    Hawkins, Mr. Edward, 62.
    Herschel, Sir J. F. W., 54, 167.
    Hofmann, Dr. A. W., xv., xvi., 172, 189.
    Holland, Mr. P. H., 183.
    Hubbard, Mr. J. G., 55, 121.
    Hunt, Mr. Robert, 182, 183.

    Imperfect Coins, Brockages, 68, 69, 70, 92, 161.
    Importation of Ingots for Coining, 3, 4, 127, 170.
    Improvements, Difficulties attending introduction of, 9, 15, 40,
                                                         44, 46, 51.
    Indemnity, Weight of the French War, 71.
    Indenture, Weight and Fineness of each Coin
                   was fixed by Mint, 36, 71, 108, 166.
    Indicator, Fire-damp, 182, 183, 187, 193, 198.
    Ingots, “Potting” of, 4.
    Integrity and Accuracy of the Coinage, 14, 42-44, 53-56,
                                           70, 71-72, 123-125,
                                          127, 157-159, 166-167.
    International Coinage, Report of Commissioners on, 36, 119, 120.
    Italy, Bronze Coinage of, 64.

    Jones, Mr. Meredith, 47, 179, 180.
    Journey, Weight a, 36, 70.

    Keys of Strongholds, 173.
    Kinnaird, Right Hon. Lord, iii.-v., vii., ix., xiii.,
                               51, 52, 54, 56, 91, 97,
                              100, 101, 102, 105, 106,
                              108, 126, 133, 135, 145-147,
                              148, 149, 151, 152, 153,
                              163, 164, 171, 183, 186,
                              188, 192-199.
         ”    Hon. A., M.P., 192, 194.

    Lansdowne, Marquess of, iv., ix., 52, 99,
                            100, 104, 105, 106,
                            146, 147-148, 149,
                            152, 171.
    Legal Tender, Amount of Coins in, 68, 76, 151, 162, 166.
    Loss by Annealing, 9, 21, 22, 31,
                      48, 49, 53-56, 86,
                      92, 138, 161, 162.
      ”  by Coining Bronze, 129, 147, 162-165.
      ”        ”    Gold, 9, 16, 21, 22, 31, 49, 51, 53, 56-57, 82, 83,
                          84, 86, 87-88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 98, 99-104,
                          117, 119, 120, 122, 125, 126, 129, 145, 173,
                          174, 175, 176, 177-179, 180, 184-189, 190.
     ”         ”    Silver, v., 16, 21, 22, 74, 82, 95, 105, 106, 126,
                     130, 131-133, 139-140, 141, 142, 143, 145-148, 149.
      ”  by Melting Gold, 86-87, 96, 97, 98, 99-104, 105, 106,
                          145, 178, 184, 190.
      ”  by Melting Silver, 131, 134-135, 136-142, 143, 144, 184, 189.
      ”  of Profit on Silver Coinage, v., 129, 130, 146, 147,
                                      148-151-156.
    Lowe, Right Hon. Robert, iii., v., ix., 104, 120, 127, 150, 151,
                             164, 166, 171, 188, 192, 193, 196.
    Lowndes, Mr. W., 2, 159.
    Lowry, Mr. J. W., 37.

    Marking Machine, Jones’s, 46-48.
    Martin, Mr. John, 30.
    Mathison, Mr. Gilbert F., 99.
    Melting Gold, Loss by, 53, 86, 87, 96, 97, 98, 99-104,
                           105, 106, 145, 178, 184, 190.
    Melting Gold, Process of, described, 5-7, 46, 53, 56, 129, 144.
    Melting Silver, Process of, described, 7-9, 46, 129, 138-145.
    Melting Silver, Gain by, 134-135, 136, 137, 142, 143.
      ”        ”    Loss by, 131, 134-135, 136-142, 143, 144, 184, 189.
      ”      Value of Sweep recovered from Gold, 96, 97, 98, 106-107.
      ”      Value of Sweep recovered from Silver, 106, 107, 131, 134,
                                                   135, 138, 139, 140,
                                                   144.
    Metals, Annealing of, _see_ Annealing.
    Miller, Mr. John, 66.
      ”    ”    Wm., 64, 65, 67, 155, 156.
    Mint Indenture formerly fixed Weight and
                   Fineness of Coins, 36, 71, 108, 166.
    Mint Notes, Issue of, for Bullion, 170.
    Mint premises, building of New, v., 127, 128.
    Money, Hammered and Milled, 1, 2, 159.
    Moneyers, The Company of, 82, 87, 99, 112.
    Monteagle, Lord, 166.
    Murray, Mr. John, 31.

    Napier, Mr. James M., 15, 16, 34, 37,
                          40, 42, 44, 59,
                          61, 74, 108, 147,
                         148, 169.

    Oakes, Mr., 182.
    Oil on Scissel, 29, 32, 33, 35,
                    86, 87, 98, 99,
                    131, 136, 139,
                    140, 174, 175, 176.
      ”  to Lubricate Fillets, 32, 33, 176.
    Orders, “Circulating,” 94.
    Office, System of Promotion to, v., viii., 15, 52,
                                    56, 94, 108, 115, 128,
                                   153, 169, 171, 173, 175,
                                   176, 177, 182.

    Parliament, Acts of, relating to the Coinage, 3, 36, 56, 71,
                                                 72, 73, 109, 124,
                                                150, 157, 159, 166.
    Palmerston, Lord, xv., 140, 171.
    Pepys, Samuel, Diary of, 158, 159.
    Percy, Dr., 6, 52.
    Pilcher, Mr. Richard, 37, 39, 42, 44,
                          47, 177, 179, 180.
    Pilcher’s File, 42-46, 176, 179, 180.
    Playfair, Dr. Lyon, iii., iv., 195, 196.
    Pounding of Coins, its use and abuse, 35, 49, 53, 71-72,
                                          73, 125, 167.
    Proclamations relating to the Coinage, 68, 76.
    Promotion to Office, System of, v., viii., 15, 52,
                                    56, 94, 108, 115,
                                   128, 153, 169, 171,
                                   173, 175, 176, 177, 182.
    Pyx Pieces, Weight of, 56, 92, 112, 113, 114, 161.
      ”  Suggestions as to the Trial of the, 53-54, 56.
      ”  The Trial of the, 49, 56, 70, 123-124, 166-167.

    Queen, Her Majesty the, 166, 168, 183.

    Rejected Blanks, 30, 32, 35, 42-44,
                     46, 92, 107-110, 161,
                     170, 179, 184, 189.
    Rejected Coins, 42-44, 46, 107-110.
       ”     explanation of term, 44.
    Remedy allowed, 32, 39, 43, 108.
      ”    explanation of term, 39, 167.
      ”    practically used, 32, 71-72, 108-110, 112.
    Rennie, Mr. G., xvi., 172.
    Reports on Mint, 14, 118-119, 127, 147.
    Roberts, Mr. W. C., v., 52, 53, 55,
                        56, 57, 74, 99, 100,
                       105, 129, 144, 147,
                       153, 154.
    Rolling Mill, 18-20, 22-23, 26-27, 30-31.
    Rolling Mills, Accuracy to be obtained by, 23, 25, 27, 30-31.
    Rollers, Steel, 26, 27, 30, 31.
    Rossie, Lord, _see_ Kinnaird, Lord.
    Ryan, Sir Edward, 166.

    Scissel, Meaning of the word, 2, 35.
       ”     Melting of, 8, 136-137.
       ”     Oil upon, 29, 32, 33, 35,
                       86, 87, 98, 99,
                      131, 139, 140, 174,
                      175, 176.
    Seyd, Mr. Ernest, 54-55, 130.
    Shears, Description of, 19, 20, 21,
                            25, 30, 31.
    Short, Mr. S. R., 16.
    Silver copper used to alloy, 7-8, 46, 49.
    Silver, Annealing of, 2, 31, 72-74, 143,
                        161, 162.
      ”    as an Alloy for Gold, 13, 53, 81.
      ”    Assaying of Standard, 13.
      ”    Authority for Coining, 3, 166, 167.
      ”    Coinage, Loss of Profit or Seigniorage on, v., 129-130, 146,
                                                     147, 148-151-156.
      ”         ”    Profit or Seigniorage derived from, iv., 3,
                                               146-148, 151, 152,
                                           153, 154-156, 157-159.
      ”         ”    Tabular Statement showing details of, 159, 160,
                                                           161, 162.
      ”         ”    Weight and Value of, 65, 132-135, 146,
                                         149, 150, 151, 152,
                                         154, 156, 160,
                                         161, 167.
      ”      Coining of, 7, 67, 72, 74,
                       116, 118, 121, 129,
                       143, 159-161.
      ”      Coins, Weight and Value of Worn and Light, 64-65, 66, 67,
                                               130, 146, 152, 155, 156.
      ”      Gain by Coining, 95, 130, 131, 160.
      ”         ”    Melting, 134-135, 136, 137.
      ”      Loss by Annealing, 31, 72-74, 143, 161, 162.
      ”         ”    Coining, v., 16, 21, 22, 74,
                             82, 95, 105, 106, 126,
                            130, 131-133, 139-140,
                             141, 142, 143, 145-148, 149.
      ”         ”    Melting, 131, 134-135, 136-142,
                              143, 144, 184, 189.
      ”      Melting of, 7-9, 46, 129, 138-145.
      ”      Standard, 3, 8, 73, 129, 130, 142, 157.
      ”      Sweep recovered from Coinage, 82, 83, 86, 106-107,
                                          131, 132, 133, 144.
      ”      Sweep recovered from Melting, 106-107, 131, 134, 135,
                                           138, 139, 140, 144.
    Simon, Thomas, Petition Crown of, 62-64.
    Smith, Colonel J. T., 140-141, 142-143.
      ”    Dr. Angus R., 183.
      ”    Mr. Richard, 6.
    Soap for Lubricating Fillets, 32, 33.
    Sovereign, Legal and Current Weight of, 39, 66, 68, 70,
                                            73, 120, 122-123, 124.
        ”      Sweating of, 59, 125, 141.
    Steel Rollers, 26-27, 30-31.
      ”   Used for Dies, 76-81, 157-158.
    Sterry, Mr. Charles, 194.
    Strongholds, the Keys of the, 173.
    Supply, or Scrap Bullion, 86, 98, 161, 162.
    Sweep, explanation of term, 86, 106, 140.
      ”    recovered from Gold Coinage, 52, 82, 83, 86,
                                        88, 90, 91, 93,
                                        98, 106-107.
      ”        ”      ”   Silver Coinage, 82, 83, 86, 106-107,
                                         131, 132, 133, 144.
      ”        ”      ”   Gold Melting, 96, 97, 98, 106-107.
      ”        ”      ”   Silver Melting, 106, 107, 131, 134,
                                          135, 138, 139, 140, 144.

    _Times_ newspaper, Letters in the, 37, 52, 54-55, 72.
    Tomlino, Colonel, 169.
    Tomlinson’s Cyclopædia, article on coining, viii., 4, 71.
    Trevelyan, Sir Charles, 195.
    Trier, Duties of the, 26, 31, 33, 35-36.

    Value of Gain, _see_ Gold, Silver, Gain by Coining.
      ”   Loss sustained, 31, 65, 67, 83,
                          84, 86, 89-91, 96-97,
                          98-99-100, 101, 102,
                          104, 105, 125, 128,
                          129, 131-135, 137, 143,
                          144, 145-149, 150, 151,
                          153, 154, 155-156, 161,
                          163, 164, 165, 174, 178,
                          179, 190.
      ”   Money Coined in each Coinage, _see_ Coined Money.
      ”   Standard Gold, _see_ Gold, price of Standard.
      ”   Sweep recovered, _see_ Sweep recovered.
    Versmann, Mr. F., 195.
    Volatilization of Gold and Silver in
                      Coinage operations, 83, 88, 103, 104-105,
                                         128, 145, 147, 162.

    Wages System, Suggested new one, 115-119, 121-123.
      ”      ”    under which paid for Coining, 46, 115-119.
      ”      ”    under which paid for Melting, 46, 116-117.
    Warington, Mr. Robert, 81.
    Waste, _see_ Coining, Loss by.
    Weighing Bullion, Differences made in, 14-16, 89, 92,
                                             104, 127, 137,
                                             138, 143, 160-161,
                                             176, 184.
        ”       ”     System of, 14-16, 136, 137, 138.
        ”     Machines, Cotton’s Automaton, 16, 37-42, 48, 124.
        ”        ”         ”     Bradshaw’s Improvements in, 40-42.
        ”        ”         ”   Pilcher’s Improvements in, 37, 39-40, 42.
        ”        ”       Napier’s, for Mint Office, 15, 16.
        ”        ”       Short’s, for Bullion, 16-18.
    Wellington, Duke of, 54.
    Westbury, Lord, 166, 167.
    Wilson, Mr. C. Rivers, 14, 127, 147.
    Wood, Mr. Halder, 195.
    Worn Coins below Standard by Assay, 48-49, 53-56, 57.
      ”    ”   Weight and Value of Gold, 53-56, 66, 67.
      ”    ”      ”         ”      Silver, 64-65, 66, 67,
                                   130, 146, 152, 155-156.
    Worn-out Melting-Pots, 139, 140.

    Zinc causes difficulty in Coining Bronze, 75.
      ”    ”       ”        ” Gold, 6, 14.

“THE ROYAL MINT.”—THIRD EDITION


OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

Especially worthy of official attention, and is accompanied by
suggestions for an amended system.—_Times._

According to Mr. Ansell, who is every way entitled to credit, great
loss has frequently arisen through the promotion of incompetent men
who cannot handle properly the fine instruments employed.... The whole
subject is of special interest at the present time, and Mr. Ansell’s
contribution to the facts of the discussion will be frequently appealed
to.—_Economist._

From an extensive knowledge of the practical working of the Royal Mint,
Mr. Ansell has given the educated world a very clear and comprehensive
account of the operations of that institution, and has endeavoured to
show—and, we are convinced, has succeeded in showing—the nature of the
defects through which it has for a long period proved no inconsiderable
burden to the country. The writer was elected to his post through his
known scientific and technical attainments; and the work now before
us is worthy of his reputation.... The practical aim of the book is
to prove that the Royal Mint should no longer be a burden to the
country, and that the losses now entailed could, by a better system of
management and supervision, be reduced practically to _nil_.—_Money
Market Review._

Mr. Ansell enters fully into the very interesting details of the
various processes involved in coining for the Bank; from the reception
of the ingots to their conversion into the circulating medium of the
realm. The text is much assisted by numerous well-executed woodcuts and
steel engravings, which serve to explain the internal economy of the
Mint, and the various pieces of elaborate machinery required to produce
the enormous quantity of money which must be kept in use in a country
having the extended commercial interests of England.... Mr. Ansell’s
book is extremely opportune, and deserves careful perusal.—_Examiner
and London Review._

The author of this book is, unquestionably, thoroughly versed in the
metallurgical, chemical, and mechanical details of the subjects treated
therein.—_Morning Advertiser._

Mr. Ansell having been employed in the Mint, is well qualified to speak
on the subject of which he treats. At this juncture, when discussions
with regard to that establishment and the coinage are before the
Legislature, the book will be well worthy of the perusal of those
taking part in the controversy.—_Standard._

An interesting work relating to the operations of that
establishment.—_Daily News._

Those interested in the subject may investigate the alleged
shortcomings of the administration by its light, and ascertain if the
Bill of Mr. Lowe will effect any of the needed reforms, and to what
extent. The contents of the book are of an important character, and
merit careful consideration.—_Bullionist._

Mr. Ansell has at command a thoroughly practical, official, and
scientific knowledge of his subject; and from the position which he
occupied, is entitled to speak with authority. His opinions, therefore,
on the economical bearings of the coinage discussion, both social and
political, are of real interest.... The chief value of the work is that
we are here shown, by one who for a long time held responsible office,
what he considers to be the faults of the existing system.... Now that
the Mastership of the Mint has become vacant, and the question is
before the country how it shall be filled, the interest of the book,
great in itself, is enhanced.—_Financier._

We wish to direct attention to a very valuable work entitled “The Royal
Mint,” by Mr. G. F. Ansell. The whole question of coinage is under
the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is expected
to make several changes in the organisation and management of the
Mint, therefore Mr. Ansell’s work will no doubt be carefully perused
by Members of the House of Commons, as it throws much light on every
branch of working up the gold and silver into coins.—_London Mercantile
Journal._

This work will be read with much interest as public attention has
so recently been drawn to the management of the Mint. The author
writes from his own personal experience, having been engaged as
an authoritative member of the staff under the late master, Mr.
Thomas Graham. The author asserts that each of his statements is the
result of his actual experience, and capable of proof. The work is
amply illustrated with some very fine engravings, which are fully
explained in the text. Mr. Ansell’s suggestions for the better
scientific and official management of the Mint should command serious
attention.—_Public Opinion._

This is a most important work, and it has been published
opportunely.... We cannot even indicate the many points of importance
to which Mr. Ansell draws our attention, but while giving the work
general commendation, we heartily advise its perusal by all who are in
any way interested in the subject.—_Civil Service Gazette._

The present position of affairs at the Royal Mint, and the interesting
service which has been rendered by Lord Kinnaird in the discussion
in the House of Lords on the Coinage Bill, cannot fail to secure for
Mr. Ansell’s skilfully prepared book more than an ordinary amount
of attention.... The management of the Mint is a matter of national
importance, and the practical experience and thorough knowledge of
mechanics possessed by Mr. Ansell have enabled him to produce a
comprehensive and valuable book of reference.—_Dundee Advertiser._

We receive with much satisfaction so lucid an account of the working
of the Mint, and the highly important suggestions for its better
management, as set forth in Mr. G. F. Ansell’s excellent treatise....
The book now under notice, which is dedicated to Lord Kinnaird, will
tend very much to enlighten all who may take an interest in this very
important subject.—_Court Journal._

Mr. Ansell frequently pauses to point out how, according to the
conclusions formed from his personal observations and mechanical
knowledge, the processes of manufacture might be simplified or
cheapened. He insists that if the mechanical improvements suggested by
him were followed out “the result would be a clear saving of £4,000 a
year.”—_Echo._

No one needs any longer to complain of want of information as to
the manner in which the coinage of the country is prepared, or what
are the duties of those who are entrusted with the important duty
of supervising its mintage. In a comparatively small compass this
book tells all that can be said on these heads, besides giving other
details, the purpose of which is as practical as the manner of
description is precise and positive.—_Bell’s Weekly Messenger._

In addition to the information to be found in the book regarding the
coining of money, those interested in mechanical details will doubtless
read with pleasure the minute description of the whole of the machinery
in use in the Mint. The book has done and will do good service.—_South
London Press._

Mr. Ansell’s book is cleverly written, and will probably lead to
enquiry.—_City Press._

This is in many respects a remarkable work, for it displays both
scientific and technical knowledge on the subject of the coinage to
an extent that at the present time can scarcely be surpassed.... The
book is full of interest, for the facts are carefully marshalled, and
the illustrations with which the volume is enriched are apposite and
excellent. We can, therefore, unhesitatingly recommend the work to such
of our readers as take an interest in such subjects.—_Scotsman._

We will close with two quotations from this really valuable book,
containing, as it does, so much that is interesting, and showing so
intimate an acquaintance on the author’s part with the subject of which
it treats.—_Edinburgh Evening Courant._

It is clear, however, that the evils proverbially connected with money
are in full force at the Royal Mint: anxiety weighs down the higher
authorities, heart-burnings prevail amongst the lower, irregularities
exist amongst the subordinates. It is probable that some change has
taken place in the management of matters since the author was in the
position of an eye-witness; but the general value of his work is not
likely to have been much diminished thereby.—_Illustrated London News._

LONDON: EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.

PRINTED BY VIRTUE AND CO., CITY ROAD, LONDON.


*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78741 ***