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.

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.

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 91⁄4 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.

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 1⁄2 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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.]

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._ 71⁄2_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.]

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._ 71⁄2_d._ on each delivery to the Bank.

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.]

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.

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._ 101⁄2_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._ 61⁄2_d._ for it. Worth at Mint price, 9341⁄2_d._, the Bank pays but 9301⁄2_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 1⁄8 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 91⁄4 | 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.

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.

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.

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