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

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

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

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

[Footnote 45: See page 9.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 48: See pages 98-99.]

[Footnote 49: See page 178.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There will be occasion to refer to the next table for further information; but as the facts in this table are not strictly comparable with any others that will be given, it is better to explain this as it stands. Of the rate per centum of coin obtained from the bars there will be occasion to speak at a later period. These figures are placed here with a view to save repetition, which would be necessary when that subject is discussed.[50] Although the figures in the first column represent ounces, each item can at pleasure be converted into pounds sterling by multiplying it by £3·89375, which is the decimal expression for £3 17_s._ 101⁄2_d._, the price per ounce of standard gold. In such case it will only be necessary to multiply the weight of the coinage by that value, and then to consider the loss of metal as pounds sterling—thus, 300,260·201 ozs. + £3·89375 = £1,171,318 5_s._ 31⁄4_d._, which sum lost weight by coining at the rate of £446 18_s._ 91⁄2_d._ per million coined. If calculation be made by addition and division of the figures in the third column, it will be observed that the average loss per million between March, 1852, and December, 1856, is £577·96,[51] and this was believed to be absolutely wasted in coining; but this amount may be fairly reduced by the deduction of £72 10_s._, the average value of sweep recovered, when it will remain £505·85. It will also be seen that the rate per million missing—for that is the fact—varied a good deal according to circumstances.

[Footnote 50: See pages 107, 117.]

[Footnote 51: See page 89.]

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

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

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

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

If indeed proof that unnecessary wasteage[53] took place be required, it will be but necessary to quote from the letter of the Master of the Mint to the Treasury, dated 7th June, 1860. This letter was placed in my hands on the 1st June, 1860, by the Master, who desired me to copy such parts as related to loss and were of service to me, and that I might confirm the accuracy of his figures. He said, “It appears by the table that the average loss on the gold coinage of the first six years is £784 0_s._ 03⁄4_d._, and on the gold of the last three years £172 8_s._ 111⁄2_d._ per million coined, showing an improvement of £611 11_s._ 11⁄4_d._ per million coined. On the twelve millions of gold coined during the last three years the saving exceeds twelve thousand pounds.” The three years here referred to were contained in the period during which Mr. Graham entrusted me with the management of the coining department.

[Footnote 52: See page 27.]

[Footnote 53: See pages 99-106.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 54: See pages 35, 87.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_All_. A deed without a name.

_24th November, 1862._ J. G.

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

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

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

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

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

+--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+-------- | | Weight of | | Weight | Date—Financial Year. | Coinage. | Value of Coinage. | of | | | | Lost | | | | Metal. +--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+-------- | | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._| Ounces. | Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 351837·830| 1,369,968 11 0 | 134·206 |April 1852 to March 1853 |3058360·186|11,908,489 19 51⁄2 |1851·888 | ” 1853 ” 1854 |2726011·580|10,614,408 11 93⁄4 |1804·559 | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 812219·517| 3,162,579 14 101⁄2 | 424·092 | ” 1855 ” 1856 |2158391·456| 8,404,236 14 71⁄2 |1039·798 | ” 1856 ” 1857 |1254703·786| 4,885,502 17 2 | 581·615 | ” 1857 ” 1858 |1256586·572| 4,892,833 19 4 | 17·784 | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 736150·582| 2,866,386 6 63⁄4 | 16·603 | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 980070·679| 3,816,150 4 2 | 74·857 | ” 1860 ” 1861 | 861205·000| 3,353,316 19 5 | | ” 1861 ” 1862 |1872214·638| 7,289,935 14 11 | 263·568 | ” 1862 ” 1863 |2351444·336| 9,155,936 7 8 | 27·480 | ” 1863 ” 1864 |1807332·130| 7,037,299 9 8 | 47·054 | ” 1864 ” 1865 |1949438·200| 7,590,624 19 10 | 43·491 | ” 1865 ” 1866 |1256347·104| 4,891,901 10 9 | 57·612 | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 175838·208| 684,670 0 5 | 5·037 | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 109580·129| 426,677 12 13⁄4 | 3·357 |June 1868 to Sept. 1868 | 280993·740| 1,094,119 7 6 | ⁂19·87| +--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+-------- +--------------------------+-----------------+-------------- | | Value of | Value of | Date--Financial Year. | Lost Metal. | Sweep. | | | | | | +--------------------------+-----------------+-------------- | | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ | Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 522 11 3 | 89 1 3 |April 1852 to March 1853 | 7,210 15 91⁄4 | 716 11 111⁄2 | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 7,026 10 01⁄4 | 707 7 31⁄2 | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 1,651 6 13⁄4 | 222 14 3 | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 4,148 14 3 | 635 4 11⁄2 | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 2,264 13 3 | 422 13 10 | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 69 4 11 | 192 14 10 | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 64 12 111⁄2 | 209 16 7 | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 291 9 6 | 254 4 9 | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 1,026 5 4 | 545 10 51⁄2 | ” 1862 ” 1863 |+ 107 0 1 | 360 1 11 | ” 1863 ” 1864 |+ 183 4 4 | 459 0 1 | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 169 6 10 | 295 9 31⁄2 | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 224 6 6 | 350 3 9 | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 19 12 3 | Nil. | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 13 1 5 | Nil. |June 1868 to Sept. 1868 | 77 7 7 | Nil. +--------------------------+-----------------+-------------- +--------------------------+---------------+-------------- | | Value of Lost |Value of Sweep | Date--Financial Year. | Metal per | per Million | |Million Coined.| Coined. | | | +--------------------------+---------------+--------------+ | | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ | Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 381 8 101⁄4 | 65 0 21⁄2 |April 1852 to March 1853 | 605 10 33⁄4 | 60 3 53⁄4 | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 661 19 61⁄2 | 66 12 10 | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 522 2 13⁄4 | 70 8 5 | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 481 14 103⁄4 | 75 11 71⁄2 | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 463 10 111⁄4 | 86 10 41⁄4 | ” 1857 ” 1858 |⁂ 14 3 0 | 39 7 101⁄2 | ” 1858 ” 1859 |⁂ 22 11 01⁄2 | 73 4 01⁄2 | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 76 7 7 | 66 12 5 | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 96 8 6 | 51 5 1 | ” 1862 ” 1863 |+ 11 3 8 | 39 6 7 | ” 1863 ” 1864 |+ 26 0 8 | 65 4 5 | ” 1864 ” 1865 |⁂ 22 6 2 | 38 18 6 | ” 1865 ” 1866 |⁂ 45 17 1 | 71 11 8 | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 28 12 10 | Nil. | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 30 12 81⁄4 | Nil. |June 1868 to Sept. 1868 | 70 14 53⁄4 | Nil. +--------------------------+---------------+--------------+

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

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

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

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

FROM THE COINING DEPARTMENT OF THE ROYAL MINT.

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

+----------------------------+-----------+----------------------+ | Date. | Weight of | Value of Coinage. | | | Coinage. | | +----------------------------+-----------+----------------------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._ | |Nov. 1851 to March 1852. | 351837·830| 1,369,968 11 0 | |April 1852 to March 1853 |3058360·186|11,908,489 19 5 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 |2726011·580|10,614,407 11 10 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 812219·517| 3,162,579 14 10 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 |2158391·456| 8,404,236 14 7 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 |1254703·786| 4,885,502 17 4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 |1256586·572| 4,892,833 19 4 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 736150·582| 2,866,386 6 7 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 980070·679| 3,816,150 4 2 | | ” 1860 ” 1861 | 861205·000| 3,353,316 19 5 } | | ” 1861 ” 1862 |1872214·638| 7,289,935 14 11 } | | ” 1862 ” 1863 |2351444·336| 9,155,936 7 8 | | ” 1863 ” 1864 |1807332·130| 7,037,299 9 8 | | ” 1864 ” 1865 |1949438·200| 7,590,624 19 10 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 |1256347·104| 4,891,901 10 9 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 175838·208| 684,670 0 5 | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 127485·816| 496,397 17 11 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 |1270778·550| 4,948,093 19 7 | +----------------------------+-----------+----------------------+ +----------------------------+---------+--------------+------------- | Date. |Amount of| Value of | Value of | | Waste. | Waste. | Sweep | | | | recovered. +----------------------------+---------+--------------+------------- | | Ounces.| £ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._ |Nov. 1851 to March 1852. | 134·206| 522 11 3 | 89 1 3 |April 1852 to March 1853 | 1851·888|7,210 15 9 |716 11 111⁄2 | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 1804·559|7,026 10 0 |707 7 31⁄2 | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 424·092|1,651 6 2 |222 14 3 | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 1039·798|4,148 14 3 |635 4 11⁄2 | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 581·615|2,264 13 8 |422 13 10 | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 17·784| 69 4 11 |192 14 11 | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 16·603| 64 13 0 |209 16 7 | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 74·857| 291 9 6 |254 4 9 | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 263·568|1,026 5 4 |545 10 51⁄2 | ” 1862 ” 1863 |!+ 27·480| 107 0 1 |360 1 11 | ” 1863 ” 1864 | + 47·054| 183 4 4 |459 0 1 | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 43·491| 169 6 10 |295 9 31⁄2 | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 57·612| 224 6 6 |350 3 9 | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 5·037| 19 12 3 | Nil. | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 3·357| 13 1 5 | Nil. | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 45·585| 177 9 11 |538 3 1 +----------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------

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

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

ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4495748·2 : 778·7 :: 1000 : 0·173208 = 3_s._ 51⁄2_d._ 4495748 : 36·64 :: 1000 : 1·955_d._ The Wages paid for Melting 2,110,962 were £36·64 = 1·955_d._ on each 1,000 Sovereigns coined. = 0·001955 on each Sovereign coined. 1,000 Sovereigns cost 3_s._ 51⁄2_d._ to coin = 0·04156992 of a Penny for each Coin.

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

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

“ROYAL MINT, _9th January, 1861_.

“MY DEAR SIR.

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

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

To demonstrate, then, the correctness of the theorem I had proposed, it will be necessary to refer once more to the table on page 90, where it will be seen that these results exhibit themselves in the financial year April to March, 1857-58, when the loss in each million coined was £14 3_s._, and the sweep recovered in that year was sold at the rate of £39 7_s._ 101⁄2_d._ for each million coined. If, therefore, the proportionate loss be deducted from the value of sweep sold, we have for the first[56] time in the experience of coiners a GAIN BY COINING to the extent of £25 4_s._ 101⁄2_d._ on each million coined, thus approaching to the calculated gain of £59 4_s._, while in the next financial year it will be observed that there was a loss of £22 11_s._ 01⁄2_d._, with a value of sweep recovered £73 4_s._ 01⁄2_d._, giving an absolute gain of £50 13_s._,[56] practically the result calculated upon. To comprehend, then, the reason, why in the following years a loss is again permitted, it will be necessary to enter into matters of the inner life of the Mint. By the year 1859 the hatred excited against me in consequence of these exposures had culminated to the extreme. The Master, then desirous of finding a permanent position for his brother,[57] listened to and encouraged any stories against myself, notwithstanding the facts above related, and instead of consulting me and sending necessary orders through me, as usual, sent written orders openly by messengers, whose instructions were to read them to each officer. These styled by himself “circulating orders,” were intended to disgust all the officers who had assisted in the reforms, and it was apparently determined by these and other like means to bring back the management of the Mint into the former chaos of irregularities, that he might make his brother’s appointment appear necessary.

[Footnote 56: See page 178.]

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

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

[Footnote 58: See page 90.]

[Footnote 59: See page 95.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+ | | Weight of | | | Date—Financial Year. | Coinage. | Value of Coinage. | | | | | +---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._| |Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 351837·830 | 1,369,968 11 0 | |April 1852 to March 1853 | 3058360·186 | 11,908,489 19 51⁄2 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 2726011·580 | 10,614,407 11 93⁄4 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 812219·517 | 3,162,579 14 101⁄2 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 2158391·456 | 8,404,236 14 71⁄2 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1254703·786 | 4,885,502 17 2 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 1256586·572 | 4,892,833 19 4 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 736150·582 | 2,866,386 6 63⁄4 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 980070·679 | 3,816,150 4 2 | | ” 1860 ” 1861 | 861205·000 | 3,353,316 19 5 | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 1872214·638 | 7,289,935 14 11 | | ” 1862 ” 1863 | 2351444·336 | 9,155,936 7 8 | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 1807332·130 | 7,037,299 9 8 | | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 1949438·200 | 7,590,624 19 10 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 1256347·104 | 4,891,901 10 9 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 175838·208 | 684,670 0 5 | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 109580·129 | 426,677 12 13⁄4 | +---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+ +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+ | |Weight of| Value of | Value of | | Date--Financial Year. | Lost | Lost Metal. | Sweep. | | | Metal. | | | +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._| |Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 91·456 | 356 2 11⁄2 |133 0 2 | |April 1852 to March 1853 |1332·474 |5,188 6 43⁄4 |708 10 0 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 728·088 |2,834 19 101⁄2 |709 9 81⁄4 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 223·811 | 871 9 31⁄4 |209 2 43⁄4 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 867·277 |3,376 19 21⁄4 |805 5 43⁄4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 515·298 |2,006 8 93⁄4 |469 1 53⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 275·452 |1,072 10 10 |262 18 53⁄4 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 248·804 | 969 15 71⁄4 |231 2 11⁄2 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 259·069 |1,008 15 0 |240 16 3 | +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+ | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 17·668 |3,183 15 11 |729 19 101⁄2 | +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+ | ” 1862 ” 1863 | 636·395 |2,477 19 3 |590 2 7 | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 629·815 |2,452 6 10 |507 11 0 | | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 464·080 |1,807 0 8 |509 10 0 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 585·622 |2,280 5 4 |535 5 0 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 37·440 | 145 15 8 | Nil. | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | — | — | 71 10 6 | +---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+ +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+ | | Value of | Value of | | Date—Financial Year. | Lost Metal | Sweep | | | per Million. | per Million. | +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+ | | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ | |Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 259 18 91⁄2 | 97 1 91⁄4 | |April 1852 to March 1853 | 435 13 73⁄4 | 59 9 103⁄4 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 267 1 91⁄4 | 66 16 10 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 275 11 1 | 66 2 51⁄2 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 401 16 33⁄4 | 95 16 4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 410 13 101⁄4 | 96 0 31⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | ‡219 4 11⁄4 | ‡53 14 81⁄2 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | ‡337 19 7 | ‡80 12 61⁄4 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 264 16 8 | 63 2 0 | +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+ | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 297 10 1 | 68 11 9 | +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+ | ” 1862 ” 1863 | 270 12 9 | 64 9 0 | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 348 9 6 | 72 2 5 | | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 238 1 2 | 67 2 5 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 466 2 6 | 109 8 2 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 212 18 6 | Nil. | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | — | 167 12 63⁄4 | +---------------------------+----------------+---------------+

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

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

FROM THE MELTING DEPARTMENT OF THE ROYAL MINT.

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

+----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+ | Date. | Weight of | Value of Coinage. | | | Coinage. | | +----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._ | | Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 351837·830 | 1,369,968 11 0 | | April 1852 to March 1853 | 3058360·186 | 11,908,489 19 5 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 2726011·580 | 10,614,407 11 10 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 812219·517 | 3,162,579 14 10 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 2158391·456 | 8,404,236 14 7 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1254703·786 | 4,885,502 17 4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 1256586·572 | 4,892,833 19 4 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 736150·582 | 2,866,386 6 7 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 980070·679 | 3,816,150 4 2 | | ” 1860 ” 1861 | 861205·000 | 3,353,316 19 5 | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 1872214·638 | 7,289,935 14 11 | | ” 1862 ” 1863 | 2351444·336 | 9,155,936 7 8 | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 1807332·130 | 7,037,299 9 8 | | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 1949438·200 | 7,590,624 19 10 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 1256347·104 | 4,891,901 10 9 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 175838·208 | 684,670 0 5 | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 127485·816 | 496,397 17 11 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 1270778·550 | 4,948,093 19 7 | +----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+ +----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+ | Date. | Amount | Value of | Value of | | | of | Waste. | Sweep | | | Waste. | | recovered. | +----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+ | | Ounces.| £ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._| | Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 91·456| 356 2 2 |133 0 2 | | April 1852 to March 1853 |1332·474|5,188 6 5 |708 10 0 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 728·088|2,834 19 11 |709 9 81⁄4 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 223·811| 871 9 3 |209 2 43⁄4 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 867·277|3,376 19 2 |805 5 43⁄4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 515·298|2,006 8 10 |469 1 13⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 275·452|1,072 10 10 |262 18 53⁄4 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 248·804| 968 15 7 |281 2 11⁄2 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 259·069|1,008 15 0 |240 16 3 | | ” 1860 ” 1861 } | | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 } | 817·668|3,183 15 11 |729 19 101⁄2 | | ” 1862 ” 1863 | 636·395|2,477 19 3 |590 2 7 | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 629·815|2,452 6 10 |507 11 0 | | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 464·080|1,807 0 3 |509 10 0 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 585·622|2,280 5 4 |535 5 0 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 37·440| 145 15 8 | Nil. | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 54·460| 212 1 0 | 71 10 6 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 701·084|2,729 16 11 |788 7 4 | +----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+ +----------------------------+------------------+------------------+ | Date. | Value of Waste | Value of Sweep | | | per £1,000,000. | per £1,000,000. | +----------------------------+------------------+------------------+ | | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ | | Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 259 18 10 | 97 1 9 | | April 1852 to March 1853 | 435 13 8 | 59 9 11 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 267 1 9 | 66 16 10 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 275 11 1 | 66 2 6 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 401 16 4 | 95 16 4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 410 13 10 | 96 0 3 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 219 4 1 | 53 14 8 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 337 19 7 | 80 12 6 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 264 6 8 | 63 2 0 | | ” 1860 ” 1861 } | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 } | 297 10 1 | 68 11 9 | | ” 1862 ” 1863 | 270 12 9 | 64 9 0 | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 348 9 6 | 72 2 5 | | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 238 1 2 | 67 2 5 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 466 2 6 | 109 8 2 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 212 18 6 | Nil. | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 427 3 6 | 144 1 9 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 551 13 4 | 159 6 6 | +----------------------------+------------------+------------------+ C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY-MASTER OF THE MINT. ROYAL MINT, _2nd March_, 1870.

In November, 1863, Mr. John Graham was appointed; but he did not interfere in the coining department until about March, 1864. The disastrous effects of his mismanagement now became apparent, and the losses have again made, it is to be feared, an habitual appearance. In the first year of his efforts, the loss per million[64] became £22 6_s._ 2_d._, the sweep selling for £38 18_s._ 6_d._, giving a gain of £16 12_s._ 4_d._ only; in the next year, a gain of £25 14_s._ 7_d._; and it was now determined, notwithstanding a written protest, that the sweep and _scrap_ were not worth collecting, so they were lost. The next two years exhibit absolute losses of £28 12_s._ 10_d._ and £30 12_s._ 81⁄2_d._ per million respectively, while in September, 1868, a loss of 19·873 ounces is recorded as a balance; yet it is a fact that no gold was ever produced to satisfy this balance, so that in my opinion it will be correct to state that the loss is at the rate of £70 14_s._ 53⁄4_d._ on each million coined. Unless upon the existence of such facts, it is difficult to understand why the Mint authorities should not publish annually an official statement of the loss or gain made by coining gold and silver, as well as the amount coined; but, that the whole details may be complete, it is now necessary to enter upon the discussion of the melting-house accounts. The table on p. 96 exhibits the operations of that department upon the same gold as that just discussed. If, as in the case of the table relating to the coining department, the total loss between November, 1851, and March, 1857, be reduced by the value of the sweep sold, it will appear to be, on gold, £11,599·825, and this divided by £40,345,185·450, the total sum coined, will give an average loss of £280 7_s._ 83⁄4_d._ per million coined, when, as was admittedly the case, the gold scissel was saturated to dropping with oil.[64] Let us now see if this loss be increased by the reduction of the amount of oil which was formerly sent to the melter on the scissel.

[Footnote 64: See page 90.]

When in 1857-58 the loss by coining was put a stop to, and a gain was produced, it was roundly asserted that the melter’s account would show that the _loss_, so far from being stopped, had only been transferred from one department to another; but by examining the table now under discussion, it will be seen that when, in 1857-58,[65] the _gain_ of £25 4_s._ 101⁄2_d._ occurred in the coining department, so far from there being a CORRESPONDING LOSS in the melting-house, that which had averaged £280 7_s._ 81⁄4_d._, fell to £165 9_s._ 43⁄4_d._,[65]—as will be seen by deducting the sweep sold from the loss recorded in the year 1857-58. When, in the next year, the gain by coining rose to £50 13_s._, the melter’s loss did not reach its former average amount, for in that year, when he had as large an amount of brittle gold to contend with as in 1858, his loss was £257 7_s._ 03⁄4_d._,[66] or still below the old average; whereas, if from this period the loss be estimated, it will be found that its average is £212 6_s._ 1_d._ per million coined, as against £280 7_s._ 81⁄4_d._, or a clear saving of £68 1_s._ 7_d._ effected by lessening the amount of oil on the scissel (explained at page 87); and this amount may fairly be added to the total sum saved per million coined, which will be for coining £494, for melting £68 1_s._ 7_d._, making together £562 1_s._ 7_d._ on each million coined. That the loss by melting should reach the extravagant sum of £212 per million coined—Mr. Mathison, the contractor under the Company of Moneyers, made an average loss of £112 only—can hardly be maintained even in the Royal Mint; that it does occur is indisputable. The cause for it is not far to seek; yet it is hardly within my scope in this place to point out the means by which it should be reduced to within the limit of £100, which is demonstrably the maximum limit it should be permitted to reach. This, then, is the state of affairs as regards loss by the coining of gold.

[Footnote 65: See page 96.]

[Footnote 66: See page 96.]

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

[Footnote 67: See pages 97, 101.]

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

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

[Footnote 68: See page 102.]

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

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

AVERAGE RATE FOR EACH MILLION COINED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 70: See page 94.]

[Footnote 71: See page 83.]

[Footnote 72: See page 90.]

[Footnote 73: See also page 91.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 74: See page 136.]

[Footnote 75: See page 102.]

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

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

[Footnote 76: See page 102.]

If, instead of Lord Lansdowne appealing to Lord Kinnaird’s generosity to leave unsaid things which should be said, his Lordship would refute the facts and figures which Lord Kinnaird places before their Lordships’ House, it seems probable that the question would be settled; but while Lord Lansdowne simply pleads that “the person who supplies information to Lord Kinnaird is only a dismissed clerk,” it becomes manifest that the facts placed before Lord Kinnaird are awkward to contradict, and still more awkward to explain, except by the painful delusion Lord Lansdowne adopts—that “his lordship confuses the accounts.” It may fairly be admitted that the accounts furnished by the Mint Authorities to the House of Commons are stated in such a manner that bankers and merchants find it impossible to comprehend them, and to arrive at their meaning, more than one banker in London _has applied to me_ to unravel those statements which have been characterised as “such that if our younger clerk were to present them he would be dismissed our service.” Still, that Lord Kinnaird has not fallen into this error has, it is hoped, been now made fully manifest. Lord Lansdowne, in continuation, stated that “the author of this book appears to have left unnoticed the losing operations in the Mint, and Lord Kinnaird seems to have fallen into the trap.” Had Lord Lansdowne looked into the book he thus criticized, he would have found that each process of gain and loss is treated at considerable length, but none with more detail than the processes of the melting both for gold and silver, as he will learn if he will refer to the book, now out of print, but a copy of which is in the Mint Library—for gold melting, at pages 69, 74, 81, 82, 83; and for silver melting, at pages 101, 104, 109, 111, where it will be clearly seen that these losses are dwelt upon and shown to be inexcusable. The returns upon which I have thus commented are also of importance as introducing a new system in accounts—that of altering such accounts without reason assigned or explanation given. If the return on page 91 be examined for the year April 1867 to March 1868, it will be seen that a variation exists between it and my table on page 90; for whereas I state the value of the coinage for that year at £426,677 12_s._ 13⁄4_d._ and the loss at 3·357 ounces, or at the rate of £30 12_s._ 81⁄4_d._ on the million coined, the return states the money coined at £496,397 17_s._ 11_d._; and leaving unaltered the _amount of loss_, shows it to be at the rate of £26 6_s._ 7_d._ per million coined, a similar alteration has been made in the account of the melting department. Seeing that my figures were those supplied by the then Deputy Master to the late Master of the Mint, I cannot comprehend why those accounts should be issued by Mr. Fremantle, who has entered the Mint since that gentleman’s death, with a variation in the figures, but I shall presently show that such a proceeding is not confined to this one transaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 81: See page 44.]

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

These considerations had no weight when the Coinage Bill was being hurriedly passed—at late hours, so as to avoid discussion on its clauses—by the House of Commons. It in due course reached the House of Lords, where Lord Kinnaird moved a clause—which would have been greatly to the benefit of the Mint had it been adopted—to the effect that the remedy on the individual piece should be 0·2568 grain; that is—the remedy from the old scale under the Mint Indenture proportioned to one coin. This Coinage Bill introduced a new principle, and it would have been wise had it given the Mint every chance of success. Instead, however, of proceeding cautiously, his lordship’s motion was rejected and the remedy declared fixed at 0·2000 grain, thus necessitating the use of a working remedy of 0·1700 grain, or perhaps 0·1500 grain, and the consequent rejection for re-melting of “_only_ 151⁄2 per cent. of the whole of the money coined.” My experience tells me, more probably of about 35 per cent.; but upon this head I will allow Mr. Napier to speak. He says, “Indeed, roundly taken, the returns to the crucible may be put at nearly 50 per cent.; so that to produce a given weight of finished coin, something like double the weight of metal must be melted. So long as this state of things lasts, the process up to the formation of the blank must be regarded as imperfect.” It is not the _process that fails_, it is the want of power _to conduct that process_ which causes so candidly admitted a continuation of the fatal system re-introduced by Mr. John Graham.

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 82: See pages 44-45.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 83: See pages 46, 92.]

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

[Footnote 84: See pages 46, 92.]

[Footnote 85: See page 111.]

[Footnote 86: See page 110.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 87: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 88: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 89: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 90: Explained on page 115.]

To show the extra cost of coining, these figures have but to be multiplied into the sums coined. Before, however, entering upon this field, it will be well to explain that the rates per cent. of coined money obtained, as exhibited in the last two tables, are inclusive of the pyx pieces, so as to show, as far as possible, the best results. The pieces taken for the Mint trial are excluded, because these do not ultimately find their way into circulation; but that the vast money loss may be seen, I have added, in a tabular form, a statement[91] which will show the weight of coined money produced in each coinage from 1856 to 1868. It may, at first sight, appear that if the work be so badly conducted as to yield an average of 3·92 per cent. less coined money from a hundred ounces of bars, the expense incurred is increased to an equivalent amount; but such is not the case, for all depends on the point at which the extravagant workmanship may have taken place. If, for instance, the bad work be produced in the rolling room, it simply induces the expenditure of so much wages in the melting, because the men are paid for the bars produced; but if the rejection shall have taken place after the money is coined, it becomes a more serious matter, because, in such a case, the loss and expense attendant on each operation subsequent to the melting have been incurred. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to give a general rule, but an instance will suffice. The coinage for 1857,[92] inclusive of every _manufacturing_ expense, cost 6_s._ 5_d._ per thousand pieces; while that of 1866 cost 13_s._ 2_d._ per thousand pieces. That the exact amount of waste may be estimated for these two years, then, it is only necessary to multiply the weight given previously (refer to page 114) for the coined money and pyx pieces, which, in the period from November, 1856, to April, 1857, would be 456,111·568, added to 464·293, and the sum of these, multiplied by £3·89375,—the decimal expression for £3 17_s._ 101⁄2_d._, when the total value of that coinage will be obtained, and found to be £1,777,796·15. Since each thousand coins cost 6_s._ 5_d._, the total sum was coined at an expense of £570 7_s._ 6_d._; but, had the rate of expense been the same as for the coinage of 1866, the total cost would have been £1,170 7_s._ 71⁄2_d._, or exactly £600 0_s._ 11⁄2_d._ more than it should have cost for actual working expenses. So by the rule of proportion the actual expense for the coinage of 1866 may be obtained, and this table is valuable as showing the weight of each coinage, but will naturally be more serviceable to those who seek practical information than to general readers, and for the benefit of such it is added.

[Footnote 91: See page 114.]

[Footnote 92: See page 117.]

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

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

Rates for Piece-work.

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

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

[Footnote 93: See page 92.]

£ _s. d._ For melting 36 12 91⁄2 ” rolling 252 8 01⁄2 ” cutting and adjusting 260 12 53⁄4 ” annealing and blanching 145 8 9 ” coining in press room 120 5 43⁄4 £815 7 51⁄2

So that for producing 1,154,590·87 ounces, or £4,495,748, of coined money, the men were paid £815 7_s._ 51⁄2_d._, which sum was equally divided amongst the whole body, except that paid to the melters, for they are still paid, by a curious fiction, as packers and tellers. This, then, is the sum paid for wages when the coin produced averaged 54·79 per cent. on the bars; but let us see its amount compared with another statement put forward by the late Master of the Mint when the sovereigns produced averaged—the coinages concerned terminated in December, 1864,[94] and May, 1866[95]—49·44 and 38·11[96] per cent. on the bars respectively—in other words, let us compare this rate of pay with that given in the Report of the Commissioners on the International Coinage, from which book the figures for 1864 in the following Table are taken.

[Footnote 94: See page 111.]

[Footnote 95: See page 111.]

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

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

+-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+ | | | | | | | | | Total | Average | Total Sum | | Date | Denomination | Number |Number of | paid to | | of | of Coin. | of Coins |Pieces per| Workmen as | |Coining| | in the | Week. | Wages. | | | | Coinage. | | | +-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+ | | | | | £ _s. d._ | | 1857 |Sovereigns | 4,495,748 | 497,625 | 778 14 8 | | 1858 | ” | 47,549 | | 8 4 21⁄2 | | 1858 |Half Sovereigns| 544,312 | 272,156 | 91 10 3 | | 1864 |Sovereigns | 5,663,656 | 514,878 |2,011 11 71⁄2 | +-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+ +-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ | | | Cost of | | | | | Cost of |1000 pieces | Cost in | Total Cost | | Date | 1,000 |in Salaries | Loss of | of | | of | Pieces in | and | Metal by | producing | |Coining| Wages. |contingent | Coining. | 1000 Gold | | | | expenses. | | Coins. | +-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ | |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ | | 1857 | 0 3 51⁄2 | 0 8 11⁄4 | 0 2 91⁄2 | 0 14 41⁄4 | | 1858 | 0 3 51⁄4 | 0 17 51⁄2 | 0 4 11⁄4 | 1 5 2 | | 1858 | 0 3 41⁄2 | 0 18 33⁄4 | 0 4 11⁄4 | 1 5 91⁄2 | | 1864 | 0 7 2 | 0 12 91⁄4 | 0 6 0 | 1 5 111⁄4 | +-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ +-------+------------+-------------+ | | | | | | | Total Cost | | Date |Cost of 1000|of producing | | of | pieces for | one Gold | |Coining| melting. | Coin. | | | | | +-------+------------+-------------+ | |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ | | 1857 | 0 0 1·955 | 0 0 0·174 | | 1858 | | 0 0 0·302 | | 1858 | | 0 0 0·309 | | 1864 | | 0 0 0·311 | +-------+------------+-------------+

By which it is demonstrably shown that whereas at that period 1,000 coins cost for wages 7_s._ 2_d._, at the periods above given, and shown as 1857-8, the cost was 3_s._ 51⁄2_d._ for the same number of coins, thus showing a clear saving for wages, by the proper system of management, of 3_s._ 81⁄2_d._ on each 1,000 sovereigns coined, or on that total quantity no less than £1,050 2_s._ 81⁄2_d._ While such extravagance is not only tolerated but approved, miserable savings are effected at the cost of the helpless. But to treat of the wrongs to which men in this Department are submitted would take volumes which none would read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The total cost, then, of producing a sovereign in 1857 under proper management was 0·174_d._, while under Mr. Graham’s system it would appear to have been 0·311_d._ in 1864. If, however, the facts be examined, and stripped of the sensational effect of the cost of one coin, it will be found that the difference is far from infinitesimal, for whereas the total absolute cost per 1,000, inclusive of everything, was 14_s._ 41⁄4_d._ in 1857, it had reached £1 5_s._ 111⁄4_d._ in the years 1864-66 (see page 117). The increased expense thus incurred amounts to 11_s._ 7_d._ on each 1,000 coins, or, on the whole amount of that coinage, to £3,280 4_s._ This, then, is the state of cost at a selected period, when a large amount was coined weekly. But what would have been the cost had it been taken on the total coinage? For then we should have found an increase in the amount per 1,000 pieces for salaries and contingent expenses, whereas the figures for 1857 include the whole coinage—beginning, middle, and ending; so that the average produce of coins per week, although appearing to be smaller than that of 1864, is really far greater, for whereas the largest number reached in any one week in 1864 was 585,899[97] pieces, in 1857 the largest number in any one week was 915,506[98] pieces, or larger by 329,607 pieces, the average per week being 17,253 pieces less, because the coinages of 1864-1866 referred to, do not contain the beginning and “tailing-off” of the coinage; in simple fact, they are figures written _for effect, not for information_. That the complete coinage costs more for salaries and contingent expenses is self-evident, because those expenses remain the same if no coins be struck, but that this is a fact is demonstrated by the little coinages of 1858 in the same table,[99] where it will be seen that, although the payments for wages nearly approach the cost of 1857, the cost for salaries and contingent expenses is greater than it was in 1864. Another point is here also proved to demonstration—that whereas the loss by coining is clearly proved to be unnecessary, the late Master of the Mint states it at 6_s._ per 1,000, or £300 per million coined. That this should have been so stated is of ill omen,[100] for when the belief of Mr. Brande and his colleagues led them to the conclusion that loss was necessary at a mean rate of £373 per million, they exceeded £500; and, by rule of proportion, we may expect the Mint to make, now that the belief of the late Master has found expression, a loss of £452.[101] Be this as it may, the difference between 6_s._ and 2_s._ 91⁄2_d._ is sufficient to make men think, for even this trifle of 3_s._ 21⁄2_d._ on 1,000 coins amounts to £908 2_s._ 61⁄2_d._ on that single coinage. That the loss on the coinages of 1858 should be so great is explained by the fact that in a small coinage the first loss by gilding the machinery is as great as in a large one; but in the case of a great coinage this is so distributed over the mass as not to appear. Had it been determined, however, to exhibit the actual facts by the system of selection followed by others, not only would this loss of metal have disappeared, but a gain would have been shown, for on those particular coins there was an actual gain of 1·39 ounces, which is at the rate of £9 18_s._ 101⁄22_d._ per million coined, or 2·386_d._ per 1,000 pieces coined, so reducing the cost of these actual coins to £1 0_s._ 101⁄2_d._ and £1 1_s._ 6_d._ per 1,000 respectively; but as these matters are dwelt upon for information alone, it is preferred to place the fair proportion of the loss on this coinage on this portion of it. It should be observed that the contingent expenses for 1857 do not include £1,100 voted for the new files,[102] because that sum was never appropriated to that purpose; but that they do include the subsistence paid to the men, and, indeed, every possible sum other than weekly wages paid to the men by the piece-work scale above quoted. I have not questioned, nor have I investigated, the figures used by the late Master of the Mint, for as he wrote those papers, and invited the Signatories to give their names after the copies were fairly made, it is but just to suppose that that gentleman satisfied himself of their accuracy.

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

[Footnote 98: See the Mint Books.]

[Footnote 99: See page 117.]

[Footnote 100: See page 125.]

[Footnote 101: See page 129.]

[Footnote 102: See pages 44, 179.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allowance at the extravagant rate of £200 per million coined is also made for loss of metal by coining, so that under this proposition the total cost of producing six millions of coined gold becomes £6,076·40. This must be the absolute sum, for the cost of dies, police, &c., is included in the amount for salaries and contingent expenses; it therefore follows that each £100 would cost for manufacture £0.101273, or about 2_s._ 01⁄4_d._ Here, then, are exhibited the grounds on which the calculations are based, and unless there are errors on the face of the figures it is demonstrated that the total cost of coining, even with an extravagant estimate, may be reduced to about one-tenth of one per cent. Why, then, should a profit of nine-tenths of one per cent. be desired or granted? If an ultimate decision should be formed to charge £1 for each thousand sovereigns coined, a stimulus will be given to the Mint authorities to investigate the cause of their losses, the means whereby these may be stopped, and to how great an extent useless officers may be parted with, thus to make a minute but legitimate saving out of the allowance, for there is no substantial reason why we should coin free of charge; nor, on the other hand, is it right that the cost of that operation should fall on the tax-payer, while a just rate for mintage would, unless under very exceptional circumstances, protect the coinage from illegitimate conversion into bullion, for it must be remembered that there is already in reality a tax of 11⁄2_d._ per ounce for the conversion of bullion into coin, paid by the _importer_ to the Bank of England, and the charge for mintage will be in addition to that tax.

A very strong reason against an exorbitant charge may be found in the fact that the French Mint is content to fix its rate at about 6 francs 70 centimes for each kilogramme of their standard gold, which is coined into pieces of the value of 3,100 francs, or about 0·216129 per cent., say 4_s._ 33⁄4_d._ for each £100 coined, and this under a system of contract which gives a profit to the contractors, so that it becomes clear, coining is practically done AT A FIXED RATE IN FRANCE, that rate being above the actual cost of our coinage in 1857, but below the charge proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by six-tenths of one per cent., irrespective of the deduction of 11⁄2_d._ per ounce made at the Bank when gold is bought.[103] This being the case, it is reasonable to suppose that all the gold for coining will go to France; whereas, if it be desired to convert the coin of France into _our proposed debased coinage_, each £1,000 so converted will produce but £990·275, because the 11⁄2_d._ per ounce is equal to 0·16051 per cent., and to this tax is added 0·81119 per cent. by the deduction of the one grain proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it must be understood that the coined money of France will still be treated as bullion. Perhaps a still plainer view of the case may be obtained, if it be assumed that a man has a million pounds’ worth of gold, which, for cheapness’ sake, he gets coined in France, where he will pay £2,161·29 for coining it. Circumstances, however, make it desirable that this million in French gold coins should be converted into coin of the British standard as coined at the Royal Mint, where the owner will find that, for the conversion of his bullion, he has to submit to a deduction equal in value to £9,725, which, added to the sum charged in France for the first coining, makes a total of £11,886·29. How many persons will be willing to sacrifice such a sum for the convenience of others? The result must be that, unless under the most exceptional circumstances, no gold except for currency can be coined in England, it will inevitably be sent to France, because coined gold will there always be 0·81119 per cent. more valuable than in England.

[Footnote 103: Sec pages 3, 127.]

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

[Footnote 104: See pages 39, 73.]

[Footnote 105: See page 71.]

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

[Footnote 106: See page 178.]

“This gives in a million coined a net loss of £257 7_s._ 03⁄4_d._; ... but after making allowance for the circumstances just stated, the loss of gold in melting remains higher, in my opinion, than it ought to be; and it will, I trust, be found to admit of some further reduction in future years.

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

£ _s. d._ Loss of melting department 257 7 03⁄4 per million. Surplus of coining department 50 13 0 ” Difference 206 14 03⁄4 ”

It thus appears that in 1858-59 the net loss in minting £1,000,000 of gold was £206 14_s._ 03⁄4_d._’

He then proceeds to show that “the loss on the gold coinage for the (_then_) last three years was £172 8_s._ 111⁄2_d._,” yet Mr. Fremantle’s return to the House of Lords No. 30, 1870, shows a loss of £464 as the average in the last three years, and he in “European Mints,” uses these significant words: “The waste shown to have existed of late years in the English Mint has not been excessive.”

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

With such losses accruing as are here exhibited, it appears to be a step worthy only the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to advertise for coinage contracts for foreign countries. At what price will they be granted to him? It is perfectly clear that, to make a profit, he must charge more than it will cost, so it will be well to examine his chance of success. We may assume that it will cost him 2_s._ 6_d._ to coin £100 in sovereigns as the expenses of salaries, wages, and loss; in addition to these he will find it necessary to pack his coined money for exportation, whither he must pay carriage, insurance, &c. Should he feel that he need not charge for wear and tear of machinery, he must still remember that it will require renewal at intervals, and every expense must be included in a total sum of 4_s._ 33⁄4_d._, or the foreign contractors (whom he was sanguine enough to suppose would give him information) will be sure to beat him in the tender for the contract. As to silver, it is already certain that his loss by coining would alone make any profit hopeless even to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who knows how to get five quarters’ taxes in one year. Lord Kinnaird has shown that the Mint loses by manufacturing silver coin, by sheer loss of metal, at the rate of 3_s._ 93⁄4_d._ for each £100 coined (see page 146), and in addition to this tax he has to pay 1_s._ 9_d._ for each 1,000 coins manufactured for labour, besides the contingent expenses, including packing, insurance, &c. All expenses must come within 15_s._ for each £100, because this is the sum at which the foreign contractors gladly accept coinages. While saying thus much, it has been necessary to reserve facts which would be indispensable to a contractor, because such information should be rendered to a contractor only on terms such as another would be willing to offer for it, and to publish it here would be hardly fair to those whose business it is to live by coining.

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

BANK OF ENGLAND PROFIT.

By the charge of 11⁄2_d._ on each ounce of gold £1605·100 By the system of absorbing assay fractions 166·666 By the turn of the scale on purchase 71·339 On each million coined £1843·105

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 107: See page 136.]

[Footnote 108: See page 162.]

In those countries where silver is legally the standard of value the coins contain the amount of silver which is equivalent to a fixed sum of gold, and in all such cases, if silver should happen to rise in price, bullion merchants buy large quantities of new silver _coins_ and export them, because these remain at a fixed price, although all other silver has risen in value. In England this contingency is avoided by giving to coined silver an _extrinsic value_; that is to say, by raising silver whose natural market price varies[109] between 5_s._ per ounce and 5_s._ 2_d._ per ounce to an artificial value of 5_s._ 6_d._ per ounce when it is coined into money. It is the practice of the Mint to buy silver only when it is at its lowest market price, and then in parcels of the value of £50,000. Upon an average of years it is found that the profit thus accruing[110] should amount to about 8 per cent. Even with perfect management the whole of this 8 per cent. would not be secured, because all worn and light silver culled from circulation is returned to the Mint by the Bank of England for recoinage into new money, piece for piece, and many of the worn[111] pieces represent only half their original extrinsic value. What we call a shilling is intrinsically worth, when coined, about 103⁄4_d._, but when it is culled from circulation it is often worth only 6_d._, therefore a loss of 43⁄4_d._ is incurred by re-coining it, quite independently of the labour and loss of metal. It should, however, be stated that the Mint makes a small profit by receiving the unreported fractions as well as the excess of weight[112] invariably given when ingots are purchased. In France the five-franc piece is coined so that it contains its intrinsic value, the importer paying 75 centimes for each 100 francs in value. Since this sum yields a profit to the contractor, we may be certain that it covers every possible expense of production. If this cost be proportioned to our money, it will appear to be at the rate of 15_s._ for each £100. Let us see, then, if the silver coinage of Great Britain is produced at so cheap a rate as is that of France, and this shall be determined by discussing the unnecessary losses which are permitted, in a similar manner to, but less elaborately than, that adopted for the gold coinage. The tables which will be exhibited are those given me by the late Master of the Mint, under precisely the same circumstances as described when speaking of the tables relating to gold. I will then briefly treat of these losses as they were, as they are, and as they should be. Those who are habituated to the working of gold feel, when that work ceases, a kind of relief, which is perhaps natural if the relative value be considered. The Mint, then, suddenly changes from this metal to one of just about a fourteenth of its value, for to the Mint people gold at £3 17_s._ 101⁄2_d._ is as 14·16 is to 1 of silver, which they view as of a value of 5_s._ 6_d._ per ounce; again, it is more bulky and unmanageable. These causes are to be admitted to their full share of importance, but should not induce us to accept them in explanation of facts which are not otherwise reasonable, and such seems to be the case with silver in the Royal Mint. Mr. Seyd, in his admirable work on Bullion and Exchanges, at page 560 says, “We should like to see a return moved for in Parliament of the wasteage of gold at the British Mint from 1850 to the present year; it might show whether there has not been at certain periods of the management of the operative department much less loss than at others, and whether there has not been occasionally a small gain even, as there certainly ought to be with proper management.” Mr. Seyd has shown himself a master of the subject he has undertaken, and perhaps the facts stated in the earlier pages of this book may reply to some of his questions. He then proceeds to say, “A return of the wasteage of silver might also prove interesting, as well as an account of the imperfect work returned to the melting-pot during each year.” When an author who has so successfully studied a subject invites such information, one can but feel that it is wise to give some details. I propose, however, to give only such facts as will bring us up to the year 1861, because the following years vary but little, and if I were to give another eight years it would require more space than it is deemed wise to occupy.

[Footnote 109: See page 152.]

[Footnote 110: See pages 146, 152.]

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

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

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

In explaining the table on page 132 it should be noted that the £1,315 9_s._ 4_d._, given as the value of the loss per million in 1852-53, is not the true value, for, as in the case of gold, the account of the loss was not kept. The loss of those years is, therefore, reduced by sharing it with the coined money of the financial years, June, 1851, to March, 1853; if this sum be, as it should be, excluded, the loss will be £1,695 17_s._ 61⁄2_d._ The same allowance must be made for the melting-house account in the table on page 134, when that sum will become £1,375 12_s._ 43⁄4_d._ instead of £1,067 0_s._ 111⁄4_d._ It is deemed fair to reduce this loss as far as possible; therefore the whole sum coined between June, 1851, and March, 1853, has been made to bear the one loss of these 1845·449 ounces. The same test being applied to these tables as was applied to that relating to gold,[113] it will be found that the average loss by coining silver between June, 1851, and March, 1857, was £1,013 11_s._ 21⁄4_d._, whereas in the next period, between April, 1857, and March, 1860, it fell to £365 15_s._ 101⁄2_d._ This reduction then shows that the former loss, taken at its lowest, gives evidence of _unnecessary_ wasteage to the extent of £647 15_s._ 4_d._ on each million coined; but this sum is not that shown by the Mint books, for, as above stated, it is below the truth. Great, then, as were the amounts missed, we shall find them far greater if the state of the melting-house be considered, and to do this is necessary, because it was asserted that the loss was arrested in the coining department by sending more oil and dirt to the melting-house. Let us then see how this stands in regard to the truth, for while in the period 1851 to 1857 the oil literally _dropped from the scissel and drained through the trucks on to the floor_, in the latter period the trucks were not soiled, and the use of oil in the rolling room was rigidly prohibited, while in the drag room only so much as was required to lubricate the fillets at the drag bench was permitted to be used, and this was as far as possible removed by careful wiping with cotton waste. It is also a fact that whereas there had been an HABITUAL LOSS in the rolling and drag rooms when oil was used very largely, there was now a GAIN IN BOTH ROOMS; in the former to the extent of one in ten thousand ounces wrought, and in the latter to the extent of two in ten thousand. These facts must be of importance while considering the following statement (see page 134).

[Footnote 113: See page 88.]

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

+--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+ | Date—Financial Year. | Weight of | Value of Coinage. | | | Coinage. | | | | | | +--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s. d._ | | June 1851 to March 1852 | 314689·050 | 86,539 9 91⁄4 | | April 1852 to March 1853 | 1088196·550 | 299,254 1 01⁄4 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 2135071·750 | 587,144 14 71⁄2 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 501459·800 | 137,901 8 103⁄4 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 1138355·000 | 313,047 12 6 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1792800·000 | 493,020 0 0 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 1420560·000 | 390,654 0 0 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 1449360·000 | 398,574 0 0 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 2052720·000 | 564,498 0 0 | | March 1861 to June 1861 | 650160·000 | 178,794 0 0 | +--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+ +--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+ | Date—Financial Year. | Amount of Loss | Value of the Silver | | | by Coining. | Lost. | | | | | +--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s. d._ | | June 1851 to March 1852 | | | | April 1852 to March 1853 | 1845·449 | 507 9 111⁄2 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 2943·025 | 809 6 71⁄2 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 657·362 | 180 15 53⁄4 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 1632·957 | 449 1 31⁄4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 2191·367 | 602 12 61⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 910·264 | 250 6 51⁄2 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 834·679 | 232 0 23⁄4 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 898·837 | 247 3 71⁄4 | | March 1861 to June 1861 | 1357·375 | 373 5 51⁄2 | +--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+ +--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ | Date—Financial Year. | Value of |Lost Silver | Sweep | | |Sweep Sold.|per Million | per Million | | | | Coined. | Coined. | +--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ | | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._ | | June 1851 to March 1852 | 31 12 8 | | | | April 1852 to March 1853 | 90 4 101⁄2 |1,315 9 4 | 315 18 3 | | ” 1853 ” 1854 |160 12 4 |1,378 8 43⁄4 | 273 11 11⁄4 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 69 19 21⁄4 |1,310 17 11 | 507 6 31⁄4 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 |104 5 71⁄2 |1,434 9 91⁄4 | 333 3 33⁄4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 |149 10 91⁄4 |1,223 6 33⁄4 | 303 6 23⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 98 1 10 | 640 15 63⁄4 | 251 1 11 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 |125 8 4 | 582 2 1 | 314 13 31⁄4 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 10 18 3 | 437 17 61⁄4 | 19 6 71⁄4 | | March 1861 to June 1861 | 24 14 41⁄2 |2,087 14 61⁄4 | 138 5 01⁄2 | +--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+

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

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

COINING DEPARTMENT.

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

+-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+ | Date. | Weight of |Value of Coinage.|Amount of| | | Coinage. | | Waste. | +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s. d._| Ounces.| |August 1851 to March 1852| 314689·050| 86,539 9 9 | | |April 1852 to March 1853 |1088196·550| 299,254 1 0 | 1845·450| +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+ | ” 1853 ” 1854 |2134891·750| 587,095 4 8 | 2943·025| | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 501459·800| 137,901 8 11 | 657·362| | ” 1855 ” 1856 |1138355·000| 313,047 12 6 | 1632·957| | ” 1856 ” 1857 |1792800·000| 493,020 0 0 | 2191·367| | ” 1857 ” 1858 |1420560·000| 390,654 0 0 | 910·264| | ” 1858 ” 1859 |1449360·000| 398,574 0 0 | 843·679| | ” 1859 ” 1860 |2052720·000| 564,498 0 0 | 898·837| +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+ | ” 1860 ” 1861 | 625714·000| 172,071 7 0 | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 769680·000| 211,662 0 0 | 1032·502| | ” 1862 ” 1863 | 532147·610| 146,340 11 10 | | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 835920·000| 229,878 0 0 | 811·466| +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+ | ” 1864 ” 1865 |1936800·000| 532,620 0 0 | 1100·169| | ” 1865 ” 1866 |1880640·000| 517,176 0 0 | 906·407| | ” 1866 ” 1867 |1739520·000| 478,368 0 0 | 891·389| | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 961200·000| 264,330 0 0 | 473·724| | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 597600·000| 164,340 0 0 | 280·764| +-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+ +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | Date. | Value of |Value of Sweep| | | Waste. | recovered. | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._ | |August 1851 to March 1852| | | |April 1852 to March 1853 |507 10 0 | 121 17 61⁄2 | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | ” 1853 ” 1854 |809 6 8 | 160 12 4 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 |180 15 6 | 69 19 21⁄4 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 |449 1 3 | 104 5 71⁄2 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 |602 12 6 | 149 10 91⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 |250 6 5 | 98 1 10 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 |232 0 3 | 125 8 4 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 |247 3 7 | 10 18 3 | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 |283 18 9 | 46 7 11⁄2 | | ” 1862 ” 1863 | | | | ” 1863 ” 1864 |223 3 1 | Nil. | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | ” 1864 ” 1865 |302 10 11 | 15 6 7 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 |249 5 3 | 16 9 4 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 |245 2 8 | Nil. | | ” 1867 ” 1868 |130 5 6 | 121 3 31⁄2 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 77 4 2 | Nil. | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+ | Date. |Value of Waste per|Value of Sweep per| | | £1,000,000. | £1,000,000. | +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+ | | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._ | |August 1851 to March 1852| | | |April 1852 to March 1853 | 1,315 9 5 | 315 18 1 | +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+ | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 1,378 10 9 | 273 11 7 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 1,310 18 1 | 507 6 3 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 1,434 9 8 | 333 2 3 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1,222 6 4 | 303 6 2 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 640 15 4 | 251 1 11 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 582 2 1 | 314 13 3 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 437 17 5 | 19 6 7 | +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+ | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 739 18 8 | 120 16 0 | | ” 1862 ” 1863 | | | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 593 3 0 | Nil. | +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+ | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 568 0 9 | 28 15 7 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 481 19 4 | 31 16 9 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 512 8 8 | Nil. | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 492 16 11 | 458 7 8 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 469 16 2 | Nil. | +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+ C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER AND COMPTROLLER. ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

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

+------------------------+-----------+-----------------+ | | | | | Date—Financial Year. |Weight of |Value of Coinage.| | |Coinage. | | | | | | +------------------------+-----------+-----------------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s. d._| |June 1851 to March 1852| 314689·050| 86,539 9 91⁄4 | |April 1852 to March 1853|1088196·550|299,254 1 01⁄4 | | ” 1853 ” 1854|2135071·750|587,144 14 71⁄2 | | ” 1854 ” 1855| 501459·800|137,901 8 103⁄4 | | ” 1855 ” 1856|1138355·000|313,047 12 6 | | ” 1856 ” 1857|1792800·000|493,020 0 0 | | ” 1857 ” 1858|1420560·000|390,654 0 0 | | ” 1858 ” 1859|1449360·000|398,574 0 0 | | ” 1859 ” 1860|2052720·000|564,499 0 0 | |March 1861 to June 1861| 650160·000|178,794 0 0 | +------------------------+-----------+-----------------+ +------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+ | | | | | | Date—Financial Year. |Amount of| Value of the | Value of | | | Loss by | Silver Lost. | Sweep Sold. | | | Melting | | | +------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._| |June 1851 to March 1852| | | 36 0 1 | |April 1852 to March 1853| 1496·945| 411 13 21⁄4 | 111 19 41⁄2 | | ” 1853 ” 1854| 1814·808| 499 1 51⁄4 | 143 2 4 | | ” 1854 ” 1855| 882·870| 242 15 91⁄2 | 187 19 7 | | ” 1855 ” 1856| 519·069| 142 14 101⁄2 | 144 0 21⁄4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857| 2912·149| 800 16 93⁄4 | 151 12 41⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858| 1001·676| 275 9 21⁄2 | 100 13 61⁄4 | | ” 1858 ” 1859| +733·101|+201 12 03⁄4 | 115 4 11 | | ” 1859 ” 1860| 199·288| 54 16 1 | 101 8 8 | |March 1861 to June 1861| 238·495| 65 9 103⁄4 | 49 4 41⁄2 | +------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+ +------------------------+----------------+---------------+ | | Value of | Value of | | Date—Financial Year. | Lost Silver | Sweep | | | per Million | per Million | | | Coined. | Coined. | +------------------------+----------------+---------------+ | | £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._ | |June 1851 to March 1852| | | |April 1852 to March 1853| 1,067 0 111⁄4 | 383 11 1 | | ” 1853 ” 1854| 849 19 113⁄4 | 243 15 0 | | ” 1854 ” 1855| 1,760 11 113⁄4 |1,363 2 10 | | ” 1855 ” 1856| 456 19 71⁄2 | 460 0 53⁄4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857| 1,624 7 13⁄4 | 307 10 63⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858| 705 2 61⁄2 | 257 14 23⁄4 | | ” 1858 ” 1859| +505 16 21⁄2 | 289 2 103⁄4 | | ” 1859 ” 1860| 97 1 81⁄4 | 179 13 9 | |March 1861 to June 1861| 366 6 31⁄4 | 275 5 71⁄4 | +------------------------+----------------+---------------+

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

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

MELTING DEPARTMENT.

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

+-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+ | Date. | Weight of | Value of |Amount of| | | Coinage. | Coinage. | Waste. | +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+ | | Ounces. | £ _s. d._| Ounces. | |August 1851 to March 1852| 314689·050| 86,539 9 9 | | |April 1852 to March 1853 |1088196·550|299,254 1 0 |1496·945 | +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+ | ” 1853 ” 1854 |2134891·750|587,095 4 8 |1814·808 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 501459·800|137,901 8 11 | 882·870 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 |1138355·000|313,047 12 6 | 519·069 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 |1792800·000|493,020 0 0 |2912·149 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 |1420560·000|390,654 0 0 |1001·676 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 |1449360·000|398,574 0 0 | 484·490 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 |2052720·000|564,498 0 0 | 199·288 | +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+ | ” 1860 ” 1861 | 625714·000|172,071 7 0 | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 769680·000|211,662 0 0 |*+20·516 | +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+ | ” 1862 ” 1863 | 532147·610|146,340 11 10 | | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 835920·000|229,878 0 0 | +48·918 | +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+ | ” 1864 ” 1865 |1936800·000|532,620 0 0 |1516·266 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 |1880640·000|517,176 0 0 |3296·589 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 |1739520·000|478,368 0 0 |2923·255 | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 961200·000|264,330 0 0 |1526·136 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 597600·000|164,340 0 0 | 599·329 | +-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+ +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | Date. | Value of |Value of Sweep| | | Waste. | recovered. | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | |£ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._ | |August 1851 to March 1852| | | |April 1852 to March 1853 |411 13 2 | 155 19 51⁄2 | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | ” 1853 ” 1854 |499 1 5 | 143 2 4 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 |242 15 9 | 187 19 7 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 |142 14 11 | 144 0 21⁄4 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 |800 16 10 | 151 12 41⁄4 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 |275 9 3 | 100 13 61⁄4 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 |133 4 8 | 115 4 11 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 54 16 1 | 101 8 8 | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 5 12 10 | 203 8 101⁄2 | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | ” 1862 ” 1863 | | | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 13 9 1 | 120 6 2 | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ | ” 1864 ” 1865 |416 19 6 | 278 1 11⁄2 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 |906 11 3 | 104 5 8 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 |803 17 11 | Nil. | | ” 1867 ” 1868 |419 13 9 | 347 4 31⁄2 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 |164 16 3 | 31 0 11 | +-------------------------+------------+--------------+ +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+ | Date. |Value of Waste |Value of Sweep | | |per £1,000,000.|per £1,000,000.| +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+ | | £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._ | |August 1851 to March 1852| | | |April 1852 to March 1853 | 1,067 0 10 | 404 5 9 | +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+ | ” 1853 ” 1854 | 850 1 4 | 243 15 4 | | ” 1854 ” 1855 | 1,760 11 8 |1,363 2 10 | | ” 1855 ” 1856 | 455 19 8 | 460 0 3 | | ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1,624 7 2 | 307 10 6 | | ” 1857 ” 1858 | 705 2 7 | 257 14 2 | | ” 1858 ” 1859 | 334 5 6 | 289 2 10 | | ” 1859 ” 1860 | 97 1 8 | 179 13 9 | +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+ | ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | | ” 1861 ” 1862 | 14 14 0 | 530 3 3 | +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+ | ” 1862 ” 1863 | | | | ” 1863 ” 1864 | 35 15 2 | 319 15 7 | +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+ | ” 1864 ” 1865 | 782 17 4 | 522 1 0 | | ” 1865 ” 1866 | 1,752 18 2 | 201 12 9 | | ” 1866 ” 1867 | 1,680 9 11 | Nil. | | ” 1867 ” 1868 | 1,587 14 9 |1,313 11 3 | | ” 1868 ” 1869 | 1,002 17 6 | 188 18 2 | +-------------------------+---------------+---------------+ _Note._—The Financial Years 1860/1861 1861/1862 1862/1863 1863/1864 exhibit a _gain_ in the Melting Department. C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER AND COMPTROLLER. ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

By similar treatment to that applied to the table on page 132 this will yield an average loss between June, 1851, and March, 1857, of £698 13_s._ 3_d._ per million coined; whereas in the period from April, 1857, to March, 1860, there is a gain by melting of £87 13_s._ 3_d._ per million pounds sterling coined. To look a little more closely into these figures, it will be observed that in the year 1858-59 there was a positive gain of no less than £505 16_s._ 21⁄2_d._ on each million coined; this is not to be explained by any known fact, but it seems probable that in that year a circumstance occurred that had happened many times previously, and from the prevalence of the same folly. At the Mint Office it is the custom to weigh the silver from the coining department to the melting department in drafts of 1,440 ounces, or for occasions of 720 ounces. Now it not unfrequently happens that the weigher leaves the counting of the number of drafts to his scalesman, and so an error creeps in. Some days afterwards the coining department finds itself short, say 720 ounces, and by searching its books finds it has been credited with too little on a specific day; after investigation the error is admitted, and the old receipt altered. Now such an error happened on the 3rd of August, 1858, when 1,440 ounces, or two journeys, were delivered, but not credited; however, on the 16th August this was discovered, and the receipt altered at the Mint Office. It is probable that the melter never made a corresponding alteration in his books, and if that be the case, the gain of 1858-59 will disappear, to be replaced by a loss of £487 0_s._ 81⁄4_d._, which would appear to be more natural. Should these lines meet the eye of the officer concerned, he could at once see if this be the explanation of so large a gain, and which has caused him much anxiety. That a gain can be made by melting is not a fact, although, if the statement be examined for the year 1855-56, it will be seen that a gain of £3 0_s._ 101⁄4_d._ appears to have been made; and once more, in 1859-60 a plus of £82 12_s._ 03⁄4_d._ per million seems to have been realised. These facts, taken as they stand, would mislead, and for reasons which shall now be stated. Sufficient is, however, here shown to prove that the stoppage of the use of oil effected a reduction in the habitual loss of the melting-house, while this fact renders it impossible to show that the stoppage of loss in the coining department was due to the more free use of oil and dirt (see page 131).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 114: See page 134.]

[Footnote 115: See pages 127, 130.]

[Footnote 116: See page 134.]

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

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

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

In the whole period of that melting I used nine wrought-iron pots, of which three were entirely used up, and six cast-iron pots, all of which leaked—some two on one day: it would therefore seem fair to assume that of these fifteen pots eight were worn out. We may then consider that had all the eight pots been carefully treated, and each made to yield its fair proportion of silver, we should have recovered silver at the rate above shown, or 24·65 ounces from each pot, and this weight, multiplied by eight, as proposed, will give 197·20 ounces, which, at 5_s._ 6_d._ an ounce, would be worth £54 4_s._ 7_d._, and by this amount may that loss of £392 be reduced, when the actual loss will be £337 15_s._ 5_d._, as determined by most carefully-conducted operations on weighed quantities. This loss, however, is not final, although absolute, because the sweep was sold for £289 2_s._ 103⁄4_d._;[117] and, deducting this, the final loss is £48 12_s._ 61⁄4_d._ on each million pounds sterling melted. There can be no doubt but that this is at least one-third in excess of the loss which should take place; yet, between 1851-57, it was, after all deductions for sweep, recoveries from worn-out pots, &c., had been made, no less than £698 13_s._ 3_d._ This excess might be accounted for either as wasteage in the melter’s department, or as legitimate loss by melting caused by the excess of oil sent on the scissel; but since the coiners permitted unnecessary loss to accrue, it will be right to charge this sum to their account, because, if they received metal free from oil, and returned it to the melter sustaining too much oil, it is evident that they received from their men bullion and oil in place of bullion. I therefore add £650 0_s._ 83⁄4_d._, the difference between £48 12_s._ 61⁄4_d._ and £698 13_s._ 3_d._, to the wasteage previously explained,[118] when that sum will be raised to £1,297 16_s._ 03⁄4_d._ on each million of silver coined.

[Footnote 117: See page 134.]

[Footnote 118: See pages 131, 136.]

In all former calculations the value has been determined on the million coined; but now that we approach the necessary considerations as to the loss by melting which should absolutely take place, it becomes necessary to state that, as a rule, 100 parts of silver bars should produce 57 parts of coined money, and in this proportion must the value of the sweep be reduced, that we may obtain its value proportioned to the silver lost by weight in melting. The sweep results, as in the case of gold, from the grinding of the burnt refuse of the melting-house, which consists of the sweepings from the floor, partly-used charcoal, and dirt—“matter in the wrong place,” as Lord Palmerston so aptly designated it. At the end of the coinage this is sold, and its value is applied to the reduction of the apparent loss by melting. In the case now under discussion, we have found that there was an absolute loss by weight of 711·853 ounces on 893,417·573 ounces of bullion given to be melted. By proportion, this weight is equal to 796·764 ounces on each million. The sweep was sold for £289 2_s._ 103⁄4_d._ for each million coined; therefore, to obtain the specific amount that should be deducted by this source from the loss, we must assume that the coined money was 57 per cent. upon the bullion melted, when £164 16_s._ 31⁄2_d._ becomes the value of the sweep belonging to each million melted. Since this sum is calculated by value, we will convert it into ounces, which is a simple process; for, as the other sums bear proportion to pounds sterling, we have but to consider it as ounces, when the sum we require will be 164·814. To this sum is to be added the amount of silver due from the melting-pots, as before explained, and which is 220·724 ounces, because it has been assumed that we should obtain 24·65 from each on the average number of pots used in melting, and this, calculated into the million, is as above. The total of these two sums, 385·538, deducted from 796·764, leaves a final loss of 411·126 ounces by weight in melting a million ounces of standard silver.

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

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

If then, as has been shown, there is a final loss of £411 2_s._ 6_d._ on each million of silver melted, we must now determine that this sum amounts to £721 5_s._ 51⁄2_d._ on each million pounds sterling _coined_; and since by coining a loss is sustained equal to £365 15_s._ 101⁄2_d._, the total final loss is no less than £1,132 7_s._ 111⁄2_d._ per million pounds sterling of silver coined. Such being the facts ascertained by the scales, we find that the loss by ACCOUNT is returned at £365 15_s._ 101⁄2_d._ for the coining department, while, at the same period, the melting-house account shows a gain of £87 13_s._ 3_d._, which, deducted from the loss of the coining department, gives a final loss equal to £278 2_s._ 71⁄2_d._, as against, in the former period, a loss by coining of £1,013 11_s._ 21⁄2_d._, and by melting of £698 13_s._ 3_d._, or a total final sum of £1,712 4_s._ 51⁄2_d._ The difference, then, between these two final sums, or £1,434 1_s._ 10_d._, shows the actual loss that the Mint authorities submitted to without explanation on each million of silver coined between June, 1851, and March, 1857. This sum is exactly 8_s._ 8_d._ for each £100 coined, while the French contract to coin each £100 for 15_s._, including loss, wages, salaries, &c. Although, for the sake of accurate demonstration, I have accepted the facts as stated, it is but fair that I should compare the results actually obtained with those stated by the usual methods, and then the contrast will become more apparent; for whereas the proportional loss by melting is shown to have been on weighed quantities £721 5_s._ 51⁄2_d._, it is a fact that by the usual methods of account, that of neglecting to charge to the melter the extra weight added to the ingots by the system of purchase, and omitting the weight of the extra alloy, this loss becomes reduced to insignificant proportions, for it was exactly £180 0_s._ 1_d._, and as the sweep sold for £164 16_s._ 01⁄2_d._ per million melted, the final loss would be but £15 3_s._ 111⁄2_d._ Yet, for the sake of truth, I consider it better to charge to each department the metal by weight, and that weight should include every atom, because then, an exceptional loss having taken place, its significance is at once apparent; whereas, when unknown weights are placed in the melting-pot, the losses may vary to a considerable extent, and yet not be detected. By this plan fictitious gain becomes impossible—apparent loss inevitable; but _that loss is so determinate_ that it can be calculated to a nicety, and any figure obtained beyond that _calculated_ exhibits one of two facts,—that the melting or coining, or both, have by too great a degree refined the silver under operation, and this is demonstrated by the final assays, or UNNECESSARY WASTE IS AGAIN PERMITTED, but both result from carelessness; therefore the Mint Master’s duty is perfectly clear. While, then, absolute gain is impossible, and loss inevitable, it is, perhaps, well to exhibit the results of Colonel Smith’s experience in the Indian Mints, because that gentleman states that there can be no loss, and that there must be a gain. Thus, then, he and I are antagonistic on the plainest possible point; yet an examination of his statement will show that his gain, although absolute, is not legitimate, but results from a near approach to obtaining bullion without paying for it.

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

[Footnote 120: See pages 137-138.]

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

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

Colonel Smith, however, has determined with great care the following facts from every-day work, and these are so valuable that it is deemed wise to quote them. He found, then, that he made an actual gain by coining from the above circumstances of 1,230 ounces on each million ounces of rupees produced as coin. In the blanching of the blanks that were used for the making of that coined money the loss by blanching was at the rate of 966 ounces per million blanched, and from the acid used in blanching he obtained 726 ounces of metallic copper, so that of the 966 ounces which disappeared only 240 ounces were a real loss, which resulted from oxygen and dirt. Here, then, are reliable figures; and, as he sold his sweep for a sum equal to 140 ounces of silver for each million ounces coined, it is clear that his real loss was just 826 on each million ounces coined. It must be seen that although the copper was recovered, it should in these calculations be neglected, because in the Royal Mint it is not in practice deemed wise (nor, indeed, is it the every-day custom in India) to separate this copper; therefore we will consider the whole matter lost to the Mint. Since, then, he has demonstrated that he received in his clean ingots more silver by 1,230 ounces than he paid for, it is only necessary to add this sum to the weight he charges to himself, which will then be 1,001,230 ounces; in manipulating this total weight he shows that he lost 554 ounces by melting and 826 ounces by blanching, or a total loss of £1,380 per million pounds sterling. This, compared with the practice in the Royal Mint, shows, as Colonel Smith says, that the Mints of India do not obtain their legitimate amount of profit; and he, in his own words, attributes the loss to what he considers its only fit cause—“peculation.” For even in the Royal Mint—ill-managed institution that it is—the average annual loss, taken by the system of weighing, is only £721 5_s._ 51⁄2_d._ Still, as showing the fluctuations, it is curious to observe that in the last period given, viz., from March to June, 1861, the recorded loss by melting is £91 0_s._ 8_d._, while that by coining is £1,949 9_s._ 6_d._,[121] or a final loss of no less than £2,040 10_s._ 2_d._

[Footnote 121: See pages 132-134.]

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

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

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

+---------------+-------+------------------+------+----------------+ |Value of Waste | |Value of Sweep per| | Final Loss by | |per £1,000,000.| | £1,000,000. | | Melting | | | | | | Silver. | +---------------| |------------------| |----------------| | |Deduct | | The | | | £ _s. d._ | Value | £ _s. d._ |Result| £ _s. d._ | | 782 17 4 | of | 522 1 10 | is a | 260 15 6 | | 1,752 18 2 |Sweep, | 211 12 9 | | 1,541 5 5 | | 1,680 9 11 | | Nil. | | 1,680 9 11 | | 1,587 14 9 | | 1,313 11 3 | | 274 3 6 | | 1,002 17 6 | | 188 18 2 | | 813 19 4 | +---------------+-------+------------------+------+----------------+ | Total Loss divided by 5 years 4,570 13 8 | | ----------------+ | Gives the Average Loss by Melting Silver 916 2 83⁄4 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Value of | | Value of | | Final Loss | | Waste per | | Sweep per | | by Coining | | £1,000,000. | | £1,000,000. | | Silver. | +-------------| |--------------| |------------------| | £ _s. d._ | | £ _s. d._ | The | £ _s. d._ | | 568 0 9 | Deduct | 28 15 7 | | 539 5 2 | | 481 19 4 | Value | 31 16 9 | Result | 450 2 7 | | 512 8 8 | of | Nil. | | 512 8 8 | | 492 16 11 | Sweep, | 458 7 8 | is a | 34 9 3 | | 469 16 2 | | Nil. | | 469 16 2 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Total Loss divided by 5 years 2,006 1 10 | | -----------------+ | Gives the Average Loss by Coining Silver 401 4 41⁄4 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+

Whereas then the loss from 1851 to 1857 averaged, as I have shown on page 131, £1,013 11_s._ 21⁄4_d._, and fell under my management in the period between 1857 and 1860 to £365 15_s._ 101⁄2_d._, it has now again risen to £401 4_s._ 4_d._—a steady increase at the rate of 10 per cent., which seems unreasonable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“LORD KINNAIRD: I rise to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the past and present management of the Mint, and although I very much regret that it is the intention of the Government not to assent to my Motion, I feel bound, nevertheless, to call your Lordships’ attention to the mismanagement of the Department to which my Motion refers. It will be in your Lordships’ recollection that when the Coinage Bill was under consideration I moved for certain returns connected with the gold coinage, my object being to show that considerable loss occurred in the process of coining. Some of those returns were granted, but others were refused on the plea that they were too voluminous to lay on your Lordships’ table. But I have made inquiries, and find that refusal was made because the officials of the Mint did not wish for any searching inquiry, and because the returns would have exposed certain malpractices connected with the coinage. I also moved, when the Bill was in Committee, for certain returns connected with the coinage of silver and the transactions between the Bank of England and the Mint. I was informed on that occasion that no record was kept of those transactions; I saw at the time that was a subterfuge, and that the officials knew these returns would disclose certain malpractices at the Mint which they would prefer were not made public, for not only is a record of these transactions kept, but the returns could be granted with ease. I have found, however, that a return has been presented to the House of Commons, which gives me the principal part of the information I desired to obtain by the returns for which I moved. That return, I have heard said, is not strictly correct; but it is a return presented to Parliament, and, as far as the figures to which I wish to refer are concerned, I have reason to believe they must be correct. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who answered me on that occasion, admitted that as regards the gold there was great loss in coinage. He said that although the Government was not supposed to make money by the gold coinage, they made a considerable sum by the silver; and at another time (on the 24th March) he said that although there was a loss resulting from keeping the silver up to the proper standard, through wear and tear, yet on the manufacture there was a profit of something like £20,000 a year. Now, I am not going to hold the noble Marquess to any statement he made on that occasion, because not being himself connected with the Mint he must have been dependent on the officials; but I can assure him that statement is entirely erroneous. It is quite true that a profit was made in the Mint in the year 1859 of £27,032 on the coinage of silver, and this arose from the large quantity coined and the very small purchase of worn coin. £647,064 worth of silver was coined in that year as against a yearly average of £341,018, and the purchase of worn coin amounted to only £8,096 as against the average of £14,633. But although this profit of £27,032 was made in this year, there was a loss of £5,373 during the next nine years. Now, my Lords, as regards the coinage of silver, there should be an uniform profit. The price of silver is 5_s._ 1_d._ or 5_s._ 13⁄8_d._ per ounce, so that there should be a profit of 71⁄2 per cent. upon the silver coin. In 1868 the sum purchased was £312,252, which should have yielded a profit of £23,368, but the return showed a loss of £10,896; so that, adding the loss on to what the profit should have been, we find that the Mint was £34,265 on the wrong side that year in its silver coinage; but inasmuch as the loss on the purchase of worn silver was £18,058 in that year, the net loss to the Mint through mismanagement was £16,207. Now, what became of that sum of money? How has it disappeared? The noble Lord admits gold was abstracted during the process of coining, and I say that the loss now arises from peculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself contradicts the noble Lord, and admits that there is a loss on silver, for in the estimates I find he asked the House of Commons to vote £1,000 to make good the loss on silver, in addition to £15,000 for the loss occasioned by repairing that coinage for the coming year, which has to be paid out of the pockets of the people instead of the Exchequer being replenished by the legitimate profit of £20,000. But the most extraordinary loss is in the coinage of copper. One ton of copper costs about £100, and when converted into coin it is worth £358, giving an actual gross profit of £258; yet I find the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for £1,000 last year to make good the loss on the copper coinage. I have been rather amused to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking slightingly of the loss on the gold coinage, saying in all probability it went up the chimney. I think it is more likely to have gone up “the spout.” Now, I find another item in the estimates of £1,800 for the expenses of an inquiry into foreign Mints. This represents the expenses of three gentlemen who are going to inquire into the method of coining adopted on the Continent; but, on inquiry, I find that nearly all the machinery in use in foreign Mints went from this country, so that we could ascertain all that we want to know about the practice in foreign Mints, by making inquiries of certain engineering firms in this country. I may be told that the foreign Mints may have improved on the machinery supplied to them, but even this may be ascertained without going to this enormous expense. Moreover, most of the coining on the Continent is done by contract, and it is not likely that contractors will give a Government Commissioner, who is competing with them by advertisement, much information as to the way in which they carry on their work; so that altogether this £1,800 will be completely thrown away. And who are the gentlemen commissioned to make this inquiry? The Deputy Master is one of them—a most excellent, financial man; but, unfortunately, he knows nothing of the practical part of the business, and will gain very little by his trip. Then there is Mr. Roberts, lately appointed chemist to the Mint; ... and the third gentleman is Mr. Napier, one qualified in every respect for the duty. In 1858 a sum of £1,100 was set apart for the purchase of a filing machine in accordance with an estimate sent in by Mr. Napier for the purpose; but, before the order was executed, an officer in the Mint made a machine answering every purpose, which cost only £60, and nobody knows what became of this £1,100. I believe this Commission is going to Spain, but Mr. Napier manufactured the machinery in use there, so he is going to Spain to see how his own machines work, and he is to receive £2,000 for doing it. Perhaps, however, as the war has broken out the trip will be postponed. Now, my Lords, what I say I am prepared to substantiate before a Committee, and I challenge contradiction. That an inquiry is needed even at this late period of the session is patent, for the House of Commons has only recently voted no less than £18,000 to make up the losses in the Mint. Mr. Fremantle and Mr. Rivers Wilson have made a Report on the subject of some of these complaints, and have suggested improvements; but these improvements would have no effect upon the working of the establishment, and would not touch the main defects in the system. One of the alterations made in consequence of that Report was a revision of the scale of wages. Formerly the workmen had a retaining fee varying from 6_s._ to 10_s._ per week when unemployed, and a certain wage beside when at work. But the pay was very small, and it was thought this might lead to peculation. The scale has accordingly been revised by the payment of £1 per week as retaining fee, but the revision is calculated to give the men a little less on the whole, a result to be expected when the arrangement was made by so skilful a financier as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the country saves £100 a year out of the workmen’s wages. But the most extraordinary part of the revision is to come; and this affords another instance with the sugar duties, hawkers’ licenses, and the gun tax, of the readiness with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer jumps to conclusions, without being at the trouble to inform himself upon the subject in hand. The workmen are by this new scale to receive less when coining gold than when coining silver, although the temptation to peculation is greater, so that at the time when their honesty should be secured by good payment, they are to be treated with a niggardly hand, and who can be surprised if they help themselves? The noble Marquess says there has been only one case of dismissal for peculation; but, if he inquires further, he will find there have been twelve. No prosecution has followed these dismissals, nor even an inquiry. Prosecutions would not be palatable to the Mint authorities, because they would expose the system. Now, I can assure your Lordships, that these statements I have made are true in every respect, and I challenge contradiction; and I trust the Government will think the facts really demand a searching inquiry. More than a year since, I brought the subject before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was pooh-poohed, and I was told that a private inquiry would be made: but no inquiry has been made, and the system remains unamended. I therefore move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the past and present management of the Mint.

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

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

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

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

If, however, the circumstances be examined, it will be found that in 1859 only £8,096 was lost by the purchase of worn silver coin, as against the yearly average (shown on page 5 in the return, but not inserted by me) of £14,633. Yet even this exceptional gain is not creditable, for, at the rate of 71⁄2 per cent., it should have been £46,502 instead of £27,033.

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

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

Such final loss is indefensible. Yet Lord Lansdowne is led to believe that the seigniorage on silver yields a profit of £5,000 a year (modified from his first statement of £20,000), whereas this return, inclusive of the £27,033 before explained, exhibits a profit of £21,659 in ten years, or of an average of £2,165 per annum. This statement will, however, deceive those who rely on it, for two reasons. The year 1859, as already pointed out, is exceptional; and another return, No. 67, 1870, made to the House of Commons (see page 150) shows that, inclusive of this anomalous gain, the silver coinage has been a source of loss to the country to the exact average amount of 17_s._ 6_d._ on each £100 purchased for coinage. In printing this return I have made it up to 1868, omitting the year 1869, which alone shows a loss of £120,000, and must therefore be an incomplete return. It is to be regretted that the Government refused on two occasions a return of the account of losses on silver manufacture, because such a return would have included loss by assay as well as loss by coining and melting. The refusals were undoubtedly based on fear of exposure, because the return can be given readily—that they can be given, is proved by the fact that I have read the accounts in the bill books at the Mint, and have copies of such entries. Lord Lansdowne was instructed to state that no such accounts are kept. The subterfuge of the Mint Authorities consists in the fact that Lord Kinnaird has not asked for the return in the precise words in which the account is kept; it cannot, however, be again refused if moved for as “transferred from the account of the Mint expenses, for the satisfaction of the Audit Office to account for the waste or loss by coining silver.” If the Mint Authorities will place the bill book of the Royal Mint before me for a few hours, I will compile the table. Such a return would exhibit the fact that in the five years last past, the loss by misplacement and mismanagement exceeds £1,867 3_s._ 103⁄4_d._ per million coined; it would show that the average amount of loss reaches 3_s._ 93⁄4_d._ for each £100 coined, such sum being in fact about one-third of the total sum charged by the contractors who conduct the coinage in Paris for France. The contractor for the Paris Mint, in his charge, includes loss of silver by coining, melting, and assay, wear and tear of machinery, wages to workmen for labour, salaries and contingent expenses; and while bearing these charges, he makes a handsome

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

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

profit, his total sum for all being 15_s._ for each £100 coined. Is it probable that the contractor would tolerate a charge of 3_s._ 93⁄4_d._ for loss alone out of a total of 15_s._ Since the Government refuses figures, imagination alone can tell what is the loss in the Royal Mint; yet in the face of such facts Mr. Lowe accepts contracts as against the French contractor to whom he sends Commissioners—one of whom experienced “great difficulty in obtaining accurate information with regard to the amount of loss that accrues” on gold and silver—that he may instruct them in the cost of manufacture. Does a banker make known his secrets? He may permit you to stand at his counter and see cheques paid, but “thus far and no farther” is the guiding principle. Mr. Lowe’s contract notions have been already noticed.

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

The unnecessary waste here displayed is not the only reason why silver yields no final profit or seigniorage—and the foregoing statements clearly demonstrate that Lord Kinnaird has not misunderstood the accounts. The great reason of the loss occasioned by the silver coinage, both by manufacture and by seigniorage, is want of knowledge on the part of the Mint officials, for it can require but little argument to show that that which costs 61_d._ and sells for 66_d._, must, if properly manufactured, yield an absolute profit. So, to demonstrate more clearly the exact case, we will take the real cost of the silver for 1868 and see what profit this should have afforded, and then Lord Lansdowne will perhaps explain why the loss arises, for this return (see page 154) is perfectly free from all manufacturing details, and does not include wages, officers’ salaries, or contingent expenses; it simply states the bald fact that so much silver was bought and converted into coined money, and by deducting one from the other there is demonstrated an actual loss of £10,896 12_s._ Now the amount bought was in real intrinsic value £312,252 12_s._, and this produced in coined silver money £301,356. It has been shown in the return now under comment that silver fetched at that period (1859-1868) 613⁄8_d._ per ounce, which, expressed in decimals, will be 61·375_d._, and silver, by the Act of Parliament, is so coined as that each ounce is converted into money of a nominal value of 66_d._, such extrinsic value being given to silver because it is a token currency, and as such is a legal tender to the limited extent of £2. The difference, then, between 66_d._ and 61·375_d._ is 4·625; if, therefore, 61·375 gives a profit of 4·625, it follows that 100 should give 7·535; but for the sake of simplicity we will consider this profit as at the rate of 71⁄2 per cent.; then £312,252 12_s._ at 71⁄2 per cent., should yield £23,418 18_s._ 103⁄4_d._, yet not only was the profit lost, but, in addition, there is a recorded—admitted—loss of £10,896 12_s._, which, added to the loss of profit, brings that total to £34,315 10_s._ 103⁄4_d._; but that Lord Lansdowne may not be unfairly pressed, Lord Kinnaird expressed willingness to deduct from this sum the amount of loss entailed that year by recoinage (see * below) and which was £18,058 9_s._ 6_d._, leaving thereby an irretrievable loss of exactly £16,257 1_s._ 43⁄4_d._, on that year alone.

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

_Worn Silver Coin Purchased for Re-coinage._

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

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

+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+ |1860.|1861.|1862.|1863.|1864.|1865.|1866.|1867.|1868.| 1869. | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+ | _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._ | | 613⁄4 | 611⁄2 | 611⁄2 | 611⁄2 | 611⁄4 | 61 | 617⁄8 | 603⁄4 | 607⁄8 | 606/16| +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Kinnaird does not stand alone in his view of the loss by the silver coinage, for Mr. William Miller, late Chief Cashier in the Bank of England, had, years since, arrived at the same conclusion, and produced at that time evidence to prove his statement. By the courtesy of Mr. George Forbes, at present Chief Cashier in the Bank of England, I am in possession of Mr. Miller’s statement (see p. 156): its perusal induces me to wish that Government officials would put forward statements as lucid. Mr. William Miller, in this table, adopts a process which I am assured is entirely legitimate, and by it educes the fact that “_the Government owes the silver coinage a million and a half, and not as an account_.” It is perfectly true that the profit, if made, is not supposed to be placed at interest; but it is also the fact that the profit _has never been realised_, hence the loss of both capital and interest. His calculations are those of an accountant, and by them he argues that if the £6,493,000 of silver coinage had produced its legitimate gain, there would have accrued by it, and the interest thereon, a sum of =£3,880,000= clear profit: he then proceeds to show how that profit has been disposed of. Being himself aware of the amount of loss by worn coins culled from circulation, he states it at £255,000; and estimating the loss on that which remains current, to be eliminated in its turn, at £910,000, shows a loss by wear and tear of £1,165,000. The details for the complete study of this table will be found in page 65, where every information is given in precise figures, while in this he adopts whole numbers, and proceeds to reason out the entire matter. That he may not press the Government, he assumes an extreme rate for the expense of coinage—varying from 21⁄4 to 31⁄2 per cent., while the real cost is about O·75 per cent.—and adds to that amount the interest thereon, then deducting the total of these sums from the £3,880,000 which should have arisen, he shows a balance £1,411,000 which the Government owes to the silver coinage. While Mr. Miller’s table on page 65 shows an average loss by wear on the silver coinage current since 1816, at the rate of 24·31 per cent. in a hundred years, and on that of George III.—_the most worn_—of 98·34 per cent., the Mint—receiving its culled coin from the Bank of England—states its loss at the rate of 135·93 per cent. in the same period (see return, p. 152).

THE GOVERNMENT IN ACCOUNT WITH THE SILVER COINAGE.

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

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

7·57 per Cent. on £6,932,000 = £525,000 Compound Interest thereon at 31⁄2 per Cent. for 43 Years, the true Average Number of Years 1,779,000 as nearly as can be made out --------- 2,304,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.:— Crowns 141,000 Half-Crowns 1,114,000 Shillings 879,000 Sixpences 81,000 7·57 per Cent. on £2,215,000 = £168,000 Compound Interest at 31⁄2 for 35 Years 392,000 -------- 560,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF WILLIAM IV.:— Half-Crowns 381,000 Shillings 412,000 Sixpences 282,000 7·57 per Cent. on £1,075,000 = £81,000 Compound Interest at 31⁄2 for 15 years 111,000 -------- 192,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF VICTORIA:— Crowns 117,000 Half-Crowns 1,043,000 Florins 1,541,000 Shillings 2,610,000 Sixpences 1,182,000 7·57 per Cent. on £6,493,000 = £492,000 Compound Interest at 31⁄2 for 15 Years 332,000 824,000 £3,880,000

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

EXPENSES OF COINAGE:— Crowns and Half-Crowns at 124,000 21⁄4 per Cent. Shillings at 205,000 2·85 per Cent. ------- 329,000 Compound Interest thereon, 30 Years 594,000 at 31⁄2 per Cent. -------- 923,000

Sixpences at 31⁄4 per Cent. 80,000 Compound Interest thereon, 26 Years 116,000 at 31⁄4 per Cent. -------- 196,000

Florins at 21⁄2 per Cent. 39,000 Compound Interest thereon, 5 Years 5,000 at 31⁄4 per Cent. -------- 44,000

7·57]per Cent. on the amount of Silver recoined at the Government’s expense 100,000 (£1,316,500) Compound Interest, 41,000 at 31⁄2 per Cent. for Average of 10 Years -------- 141,000 Balance 1,411,000 £3,880,000

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

_December, 1860._ W. MILLER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 123: See page 162.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mint officials may, and probably will, plead that this return, as well as that relating to silver, is “false;” still they must stand or fall by their own figures, or issue intelligible and trustworthy returns to the orders of the House of Commons; and these exhibit the fact that Messrs. Watt’s contract gave a profit of 203 per cent.; the Mint and Messrs. Watt’s contract jointly of 108 per cent.; the Mint solely, of only 783⁄4 per cent. It will probably be asserted that the purchase of the old copper money caused the apparent loss; but this argument will be disposed of if we take the case of 1863, up to which period 1,651 tons 8 cwts. 2 qrs. 273⁄4 lbs.; of worn copper coin had been purchased at an absolute cost of £234·80 per ton. To assume then that this was the cause for diminished profit, let us see if it can be proved to demonstration. I have shown that a ton of bronze money is worth £358, and a ton of copper, when bought as old coin, £234·80; therefore, the copper so bought should yield profit of about £152·50 per centum. But it should do more than this; for I, of my own knowledge,—because I ordered it,—state that bronze was bought to a considerable amount at the then current rate of new copper. The following, however, is the worst that could happen:—If the whole of the old copper cost £234·80 per ton, when converted into bronze money, it would produce £358, or equal to £152·5 per cent. profit. Upon what ground then can the profit—when new copper at the lower price is bought—be reduced so low as to 108 per cent., and then fall to £78·70 per cent. on the copper purchased? Were any prosecutions made, or were men simply told their “services were no longer required?” If the accounts were investigated by a professional accountant, what amount of loss in weight—in addition to the loss by dirt which amounted to 0·41 per cent. on each ton melted—would be shown when they were balanced? Another curious inquiry might be made:—At what rate for labour was bronze money coined in the Royal Mint after the cessation of the contract? It might be found to be exorbitant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the same manner the trial of the pyx was held at Westminster on the 19th January, 1866, the only difference consisting in the fact that at that time £34,927,008 8_s._ 01⁄4_d._ in coined gold, and £1,556,100 11_s._ 10_d._ in coined silver were submitted to this test.

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

[Footnote 126: See pages 53-56.]

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

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

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

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

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

When the new Coinage Act was passing through Parliament, a clause was introduced which has enabled any person to send gold to the Mint for coinage free from expense, except loss of interest. Colonel Tomline, M.P., has been the first to avail himself of this right, and I happened to be with that gentleman on the 4th February, 1871, when he received from the Mint £100 in coined gold, of which he gave me a specimen. This is the first time that a private person has attempted such an invasion of the prescriptive rights of the Bank of England, and by it he has made a clear gain of 13⁄4_d._ (although in this instance he lost profit by assay and trade practice), for he sent an ingot which weighed 25·681 ounces—seller’s weight at £3 17_s._ 9_d._ an ounce—and received back from the Mint 25·684 ounces of sovereigns, or in excess weight 0·003 ounce. The time occupied was twenty days. The principle thus established is a great one, and it is to be hoped that Colonel Tomline will carry his point against the Master of the Mint as regards a free coinage of silver; for while the Government claims the exclusive right to coin silver, its workshop—the Mint—refuses to issue coined silver to the public. That department sells threepenny pieces because the Bank of England will not take the trouble; but all other silver coin goes to that institution, to be issued by it to bankers alone in bulk.

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX.

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.

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

MY LORD,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

“_Royal Mint, 10th July, 1857._

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

(Signed) “THO. GRAHAM.”

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

“_25th August, 1857._

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

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

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

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

“_Treasury Chambers, 3rd September, 1858._

“SIR,

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

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

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

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

“_Royal Mint, January 6th, 1860._

“SIR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“With unmeasured hope and confidence,

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

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

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

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

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

WASTE IN THE MELTING DEPARTMENT—GOLD COINAGE.

+--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+ | | Weight of | |Amount | | | Date. | Gold | Value of Gold | of | Value of| | | Coinage. | Coinage. |Waste. | Waste. | +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+ |April 1, 1858,| Ounces. | £ _s. d._|Ounces.| £ _s. d._| | to March | 736150·582|2,866,386 6 63⁄4 |248·804|968 15 71⁄4 | | 31, 1859. | | | | | +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+ +--------------+-----------+------------+-----------+ | | Value | Value of | Value of | | Date. | of Sweep | Waste per | Sweep per | | |recovered. | Million. | Million. | +--------------+-----------+------------+-----------+ |April 1, 1858,| £ _s. d._| £ _s.d._ | £ _s. d._| | to March |231 2 11⁄4 | 337 19 7 | 80 12 61⁄4 | | 31, 1859. | | | | +--------------+-----------+------------+-----------+

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

“On a gold coinage of £2,866,386 6_s._ 63⁄4_d._ the net loss by account in the Melting Department is £737 16_s._ 53⁄4_d._; this gives on a million coined a net loss of £257 7_s._ 03⁄4_d._ Of the loss by account a portion is apparent only, and depends upon the dissipation during the melting of the oil and other impurities adhering to the gold scissel. The adventitious matter described was acquired by the scissel in the coining operations, and it has the effect of lowering the amount of loss reported in the Coining Department (as will be seen immediately) in the same proportion that it elevates the loss by account of the Melting Department. But after making allowances for the circumstance just stated, the loss of gold in melting remains higher in my opinion than it ought to be, and it will, I trust, be found to admit of some further reduction in future years.

WASTE IN COINING DEPARTMENT—GOLD COINAGE.

+--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+ | | | |Amount | | | Date. | Weight of | Value of | of | Value of | | | Coinage. | Coinage. |Waste. | Waste. | +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+ |April 1, 1858,| Ounces. | £ _s. d._|Ounces.| £ _s. d._ | | to March | 736150·582|2,866,386 6 63⁄4 |16·603 |64 12 111⁄4 | | 31, 1859. | | | | | +--------------+-----------+----------------+-------+-----------+ +--------------+-----------+-----------+------------+ | | Value | Value of | Value of | | Date. | of Sweep | Waste per | Sweep per | | |recovered. | Million. | Million. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+------------+ |April 1, 1858,|£ _s. d._|£ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._ | | to March |209 16 7 |22 11 03⁄4 | 73 4 03⁄4 | | 31, 1859. | | | | +--------------+-----------+-----------+------------+

“On a gold coinage of £2,866,386 6_s._ 63⁄4_d._ the account shows a waste amounting to £64 12_s._ 111⁄2_d._, with sweep recovered amounting to £209 16_s._ 7_d._ The Coining Department therefore returns a surplus by account of £145 3_s._ 71⁄2_d._; that is, £209 16_s._ 7_d._ less £64 12_s._ 111⁄4_d._

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

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

£ _s. d._ “Loss of Melting Department 257 7 03⁄4 per million. Loss of Coining Department 50 13 0 ” Difference 206 14 03⁄4 ”

“It thus appears that in 1858-9 the net loss in minting £1,000,000 gold was £206 14_s._ 03⁄4_d._

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

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

£ _s. d._ In 1851-52 479 5 8 ” 1852-53 921 10 7 ” 1853-54 795 11 73⁄4 ” 1854-55 661 2 41⁄4 ” 1855-56 724 1 3 ” 1856-57 691 14 13⁄4 ” 1857-58 140 4 7[127] ” 1858-59 206 14 03⁄4 ” 1859-60 187 0 0 partly by estimate.

[Footnote 127: Understated at £99 14_s._ 51⁄22_d._ in previous letter of May 22, 1858, in consequence of the sweep recovered per million having been taken at £136 13_s._ 9_d._ instead of £93 3_s._ 7_d._, the correct amount.]

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

“It appears by the table that the average loss on the gold coinage of the first six years is £784 0_s._ 03⁄4_d._; and on the gold coinage of the last three years, £172 8_s._ 111⁄2_d._ per million coined; showing an improvement of £611 11_s._ 11⁄4_d._ per million coined. On the twelve millions of gold coined, during the last three years, the saving exceeds twelve thousand pounds.

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

PROPORTION IN 100 SOVEREIGN BLANKS CUT.

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

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

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

“To Mr. R. Pilcher £40.

“To Meredith Jones £20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I quote thus much of this letter to prove to your Lordship that THE MASTER ADOPTED MY RECOMMENDATIONS; indeed, he specifically stated to me that the recommendations for Mr. Pilcher and myself were made with a view to support a future application. I would also observe that the actual money saving effected by the coining of the brittle gold here alluded to was £1,562 7_s._ 113⁄4_d._, and I desire to be very clear in stating that I copied this letter from Mr. Graham’s own writing. That a copy of it was sent to the Treasury would seem to be certain, for the following reply was received and handed to me by the Master:—

FROM THE TREASURY TO THE MASTER OF THE MINT.

“_Treasury Chambers, 22nd September, 1860._

“SIR,

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

(Signed) “GEORGE A. HAMILTON.

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

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

FROM THE TREASURY TO THE MASTER OF THE MINT.

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

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

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

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

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

“DEAR SIR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Signed) “GEORGE A. HAMILTON.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“THE RIGHT HON. B. DISRAELI.”

ENCLOSURE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“MY LORD,

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

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

“THE LORD KINNAIRD.”

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

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

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

“DEAR SIR,

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

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

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

“G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.”

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

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

“DEAR SIR,

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

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

“Yours faithfully, (Signed) “KINNAIRD.

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

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

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

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

“DEAR MR. GLADSTONE,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“MY DEAR LORD,

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

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

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

“LORD KINNAIRD.”

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

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

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

“Sheweth as follows:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

“GEORGE F. ANSELL.

“_10th February, 1869._”

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

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

“DEAR SIR,

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

“HON. ARTHUR KINNAIRD, M.P.”

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

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

“SIR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Your obedient servant, (Signed) “KINNAIRD.

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

Envelope marked “Private,”

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

“MY LORD,

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

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

“THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD.”

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

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

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

“MY DEAR KINNAIRD,

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

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

“THE HON. A. KINNAIRD.”

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

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

“In reply to your Memorial of the 10th of February last, I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury to acquaint you that my Lords have made inquiry into the circumstances which led to the cessation of your employment as a temporary clerk at the Royal Mint, and they do not find that they are such as in their opinion would justify them in awarding you any compensation in consequence thereof.

“I am further desired to state that your removal from the service was entirely within the discretion of the Master of the Mint, who distinctly denies ever having held out to you any expectation of promotion or of permanent employment; and that your statements as to the value of your services at the Mint are not corroborated by Mr. Graham.

“In conclusion, I am desired to add, with regard to your application that your services may be continued in some other department, that my Lords have no appointment at their disposal to which they can nominate you.

“I am, Sir, “Your obedient servant, (Signed) “WILLIAM LAW,” “GEORGE F. ANSELL, ESQ., “27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, W.C.” “Exad.

Whereupon your Lordship took steps, which I will explain presently; but I beg first to append a few extracts from my diary, written day by day at a time when, had my confidence in Mr. Graham been shaken, I could have induced him to make a written agreement. I instead placed in him so profound a confidence that I placed my future, _as he knew_, entirely in his keeping.

“_9th March, 1858._

“I expressed an opinion that in the event of the Master being ill, or seeing fit to resign, I should be summarily dismissed the Mint, and that the —— and —— would come into power. I also related the grounds for my opinion, and the Master said that ‘the Treasury were too much awake to all affairs to admit of my dismissal or removal, or of such a change at any time under any circumstances; and that, beside, Mr. Sterry was now just preparing his last Report of the waste per quarter, and which would effectually close —— and ——’s chance.’”

“_9th July, 1858._

“I showed the Master, and he read Mr. Halder Wood’s letter. I sought his advice, and he advised me to remain at the Mint, promising that, so soon as Mr. Brande or Mr. Buckle died, I should be placed in their position, for the Treasury would not make a place for me. I wrote this to Mr. Wood, who soon replied, offering me a place which was next to himself, and advising me ‘not to trust Graham’s promises.’”

“_September 2nd, 1857._

“A note from Mr. F. Versmann, declining a position which I had placed at his disposal under these circumstances. Mr. Corcoran offered to introduce me to Mr. Payne, who subsequently offered to engage me on the following terms: I was to attend three days a week at Farnham, where I was to have a residence and £250 a year. The other three days I was at perfect liberty to use and to spend in London, in no way tied to Mr. Payne. I consulted Mr. Graham. He promised most faithfully that I should be ‘above all,’ and advised me to decline Mr. Payne’s offer. I did decline it, and to prove to Mr. Graham that the offer was _bona fide_, I handed to him Mr. Payne’s letter, with a request that he would recommend a fit person, and I would introduce him. Mr. Graham gave the letter to Mr. Versmann, who in his note says he declines because ‘I am sorry indeed that Mr. Payne finds it necessary for the chemist to reside on the spot; but, after all, I am sure I am right in not giving up my chances in London.’ Mr. Corcoran has at this day a perfect recollection of the whole matter, and writes me ‘I believe you would have accepted, but you had a prospect of a certain position in the Royal Mint.’”

“_October 5th, 1859._

“In a conversation about my position, which had arisen from the opposition offered to me, the Master said, ‘Yes, that is the difficulty, you see the Treasury will not give you a position while we have so much old lumber in the way of officers who do nothing.... And in truth I will tell you I had hoped that the Act of last session would have rendered retirement at sixty-five compulsory, and then I would have placed you in a far higher position in the coining department; but that clause was unwisely withdrawn, and here I am, still encumbered by people utterly useless.’ I said, ‘Is it probable that I shall have to wait for my promotion till the death or retirement of one of my so-called ‘superior officers,’ or shall I now stand a chance of a more immediate position of safety?’ He replied with great earnestness, ‘It is a year since anything was done for you, so I will do something for you before the end of early winter, and you stand a far better chance now that Sir Charles Trevelyan is gone from the Treasury, for he always stood in your way, because his own nominations had turned out so very disastrously to this place; but I will promise you I will set you firmly directly the men return to London—directly the Ministers are in town.’”

_22nd April, 1869._

Being determined to find the reason why I failed to be appointed, you, as stated in your Lordship’s letter, called on Mr. Graham, at the Mint. Mr. Graham spoke of his desire to serve Mr. Ansell, and offered “to appoint him to the position from which Mr. C. W. Goodwin was to be retired with an increased salary.”

I had in writing begged your Lordship to allow me to decline this offer, because I saw through the malevolent malice which induced it, and enclosed a statement with extracts from my diary.

Four days later, it appears that your Lordship called again on Mr. Thomas Graham, in the Mint, where he was in consultation with Dr. Lyon Playfair, M.P., and Mr. C. W. Fremantle, when you, as stated in your letter, read and heard read Mr. Graham’s letter to the Treasury, and your Lordship wrote to Mr. Lowe in relation to this interview with Mr. Graham, and sent me Mr. Lowe’s reply.

“_Downing Street, Whitehall, April 29th, 1869._

“DEAR LORD KINNAIRD,

“Had Mr. Graham consulted me, I should have advised him not to produce any documents to you and Dr. Lyon Playfair, for the simple reason that I have already decided the case, and that it ought not to be opened without my consent. That consent I feel myself bound to withhold. I cannot permit any one in this office to act as a Court of Appeal on what I have decided. I have already given to your Lordship such explanations as the case seemed to require, and I have nothing to add to it.

“I am, my lord, “Faithfully yours, (Signed) “ROBERT LOWE.

“THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD.”

THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., TO THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOWE.

“_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., May 4th, 1869._

“DEAR MR. LOWE,

“The only explanation in re Ansell which I received from you, was that Mr. Ansell’s Memorial, which complained of Mr. Graham’s conduct, had been remitted to that gentleman for an answer, and that, after receiving it, you considered further inquiry was unnecessary.

“I then asked to see the answer, and was refused, though, at the same time you _assured me_ that it did not reflect in the least on Mr. Ansell’s character. When I did see Mr. Graham’s answer, I was struck with the animus which pervaded its tone, and can hardly understand how such a difference ‘between us’ can exist as to what _does_ and _does not_ reflect on a man’s character. That the impression conveyed to my mind by the document is the natural one, is corroborated by the declaration of Dr. Lyon Playfair on reading it; for he declared, ‘most strongly, that if published, it would prevent Mr. Ansell obtaining, not only any official, but any other employment.’ And certainly, if the statements therein be true, such a result would be deserved; however, the document bears on the face of it so manifest a perversion of facts, and exhibits such a malevolent feeling towards Mr. Ansell on the part of Mr. Graham, on _whose word alone_ you have ‘decided the case,’ that I am satisfied that the publication of this document would rather tell in Mr. Ansell’s favour than otherwise. I pointed out to you that the appointment by Mr. Graham of his brother, whose unfortunate habits were well known, to a position of great responsibility in the Mint, and the peculations and losses which, by Mr. Graham’s own admission, had taken place, demanded a special inquiry into the management, and however much I might wish to screen a man of Mr. Graham’s scientific acquirements, I do not feel inclined to follow your advice and ‘ask Mr. Gladstone to give Mr. Ansell another appointment,’ instead of exposing the mismanagement of the Mint, and I cannot understand how, if you believe Mr. Graham’s answer to be reliable, you could recommend me to take such a course.

“Yours faithfully, (Signed) “KINNAIRD.

“THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOWE, Downing Street.”

THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., TO THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE. “_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., May 4th, 1869._

“DEAR MR. GLADSTONE,

“Since I saw you on the subject of Mr. Ansell’s appointment to the vacant office at the Mint, I have seen Mr. Graham’s answer to Mr. Ansell’s Memorial, and I earnestly hope that you will not think of filling up the vacant office without a full inquiry into the management of that Department, which I consider is imperatively called for, and I do not think that in making that appointment you would be justified in being guided by the advice of the Master of the Mint, who formerly appointed to that office his brother, whose drunken habits were so notorious as to render him quite unfit to be continued in such a charge.

“I see no reason to doubt Mr. Ansell’s statements that great peculations did take place at the Mint, as well as waste in coining. This is admitted by the Master himself, and clearly brought out in the Memorial of Mr. Ansell, who was employed for twelve years as supernumerary, and received an acknowledgment more than once from the Treasury in consequence of the saving he had effected. Mr. Graham, it is true, denies the facts, and endeavours to blast Mr. Ansell’s character, and thus to throw discredit on the evidence Mr. Ansell could give.

“Mr. Graham further states in his answer that Mr. Ansell was dismissed on the complaint of his brother, while the letter of dismissal following immediately on Mr. Ansell’s application to Mr. Disraeli to be put on the permanent staff bears, that it was in consequence of the ‘coining department being so partially occupied,’ though at the same time a new coinage had been ordered.

“Mr. Graham’s answer bears on the face of it such a perversion of facts that it appears to me an inquiry is absolutely necessary, and I hope you will not oppose a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the management of the Mint, unless some other mode of inquiry is adopted.

“Believe me, “Yours faithfully, (Signed) “KINNAIRD.

“THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE.”

Your Lordship will perhaps allow me to bring to your remembrance that Mr. Thomas Graham died on the 16th of September, 1869, many months after you had made great exertions in my favour. This is the more necessary because some have thought that Mr. Graham was not aware of my charges against him, whereas he had a full knowledge of all that was passing, and his removal made it more difficult for me to prove my statements or to obtain justice. It had been, I believe, your Lordship’s intention to allow “my case,” as it has been called, to go into abeyance till, on the occasion of your motion in the House of Lords for a Committee to inquire into the management of the Mint, others gratuitously attacked me, instead of replying to your Lordship exact statements made on the 18th July, 1870, when you once more brought the subject of the Mint before the House of Lords. As that debate became of personal interest to myself, I beg to quote your Lordship’s concluding speech.

“LORD KINNAIRD: I am quite ready, as far as Professor Graham is concerned, to acquit him individually and personally from anything improper; all I have to say with regard to Professor Graham is that he was not a fit person for the office, as he continued the jobbery which he found in existence, and which had prevailed there ever since the Mint was a Government office. He appointed his own brother, a calico printer, to an office for which he was entirely unfit, not only on the ground of general incompetence, but from his well-known habits of intemperance. I am quite ready to admit that the bulk of the information I possess upon the subject is obtained from Mr. Ansell, who was for many years employed by the Master of the Mint, and who, as the returns show, succeeded in making even the gold coinage a paying department, as it should be, instead of a losing department, as it is; but my statements are also founded on, and confirmed by, returns presented to both Houses of Parliament. Mr. Ansell also put a stop to peculation, and made himself very unpopular among the officials in consequence. Mr. Ansell gave up very valuable appointments in order to fulfil his duties at the Mint, under the repeated promise of promotion when a vacancy should occur; and I am afraid I am responsible for what is called his dismissal, for, when I applied to the late Prime Minister for his promotion, Mr. Graham, who, in common with the other officials, feared an exposure from Mr. Ansell’s promotion, wrote him a letter of dismissal as follows:—

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

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

‘I remain, faithfully yours, ‘THO. GRAHAM.

‘G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.’

“After this dismissal the profit ceased and the loss recurred. I accordingly applied to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an inquiry, but I was treated rather summarily, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he deprecated any inquiry. Only two or three months, however, after giving him that notice, and while he was still engaged in the Mint, Mr. Graham warmly recommended him for the office of Gas Inspector to the Corporation of London, stating that he was a well-informed practical chemist, and ‘a man of tried integrity’—‘a man of _tried integrity_!’ Now, within three months after the Master of the Mint dismissed this officer—who, as the returns will show, had saved the country some thousands—he writes this testimonial:—

‘I beg to express the very favourable opinion which I entertain of Mr. G. F. Ansell’s qualifications for the office of Inspector of Gas to the Corporation of London. Mr. Ansell is a well-informed practical chemist, and has given much attention for several years to gas. He is the inventor of an ingenious instrument for indicating the presence of fire-damp in the atmosphere of mines, which is much admired by scientific and practical men. Mr. Ansell is also a man of tried integrity and great energy. From what I have seen of him at the Mint I would say that he would devote himself entirely and conscientiously to the work of the new office, if appointed.’

“THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Who signed that letter?

“LORD KINNAIRD: Thomas Graham. And, notwithstanding this high testimony to the value of his services, this man was dismissed because he knew too much of what was going on in the Mint. I challenge the Mint authorities to prove a single statement in his book to be false. If they can, why do they not contradict him? They dare not. Mr. Ansell’s book has been some months before the public, and if the Mint could have challenged his statements, which are very damaging, they would certainly have done so. I challenge contradiction. I am very glad the noble Lord has given me the opportunity of making this statement with regard to Mr. Graham, a talented man, but quite unable to cope with the clever men about him, unaided by Mr. Ansell. Now that Mr. Ansell has been dismissed, you see what is the result. The noble Lord has told your Lordships of reforms which have been made at the Mint; but I can assure him I expect little good to result from those reforms, for the very men who then had charge of these departments, and who permitted the peculations and mismanagement which Mr. Ansell stopped, are the men who are now promoted to the chief management of the operative departments of the Mint. I hope, therefore, the matter will not be allowed to drop, for I am sure there is no department in this or any other country more corrupt than the Mint.”

“Motion (by leave of the House) _withdrawn_.”— (_House of Lords, Monday 18th July, 1870._ Hansard’s Report)

I beg to express my great obligation to your Lordship for so complete a determination to obtain justice for me as you have exhibited, and which has required not only labour given ungrudgingly, but time, which I am sure would have been of inestimable value to others. My power to thank is weak, but I am entirely grateful. I am also obliged to your Lordship for sending me a copy of Hansard’s Report, which I, in accordance with your Lordship’s permission, print elsewhere, but reserve its conclusion as a fitting finish to this statement, which I submit as a true epitome of my unfortunate—for myself—connection with the Royal Mint.

I have the honour to remain, My Lord, Most gratefully your Lordship’s obedient and obliged servant, GEORGE F. ANSELL.

THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., F.R.G.S. Lord-Lieutenant of Perthshire, &c., &c., &c.

INDEX.

Accounts of the Royal Mint, 14-15, 36, 83, 84, 85, 94, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 115, 136, 142, 149, 155, 173. Acts of Parliament relating to the Coinage, 3, 36, 56, 71, 72, 73, 109, 124, 150, 157, 159, 166. Adjusting of Fillets, 9, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 42, 112-113. Alloy, Copper is used as, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 21, 31, 46, 48, 49, 53-56, 58, 82, 86, 87, 138, 141, 142, 143, 157-159. ” Extra, 49, 136, 137, 138, 141. ” Impurities contained in, 6, 13-14, 81. ” The best, for Coinage purposes, 49, 81, 157, 158. ” ” Coining Dies, 81, 157. Analysis of Bullion, Advantages attending, 13-14, 81, 157-158. Annealing and Blanching, Debases Standard of Coinage, 31, 48, 49, 50, 53-56, 57, 58. ” Furnace, 21, 48, 49, 57, 62, 74. ” Loss occasioned by, 9, 21, 22, 31, 48, 49, 53-56, 57, 86, 92, 138, 161, 162. Ansell, George F., Diary of, 194-195. ” Fire-damp Indicator, 182-183, 187, 193, 198. Ansell’s Standard Gauge, 23-25, 35. Antimony in Standard Gold attacks Iron, 19. Argyll, Duke of, ix., 166, 171, 198. Artists as regards Dies for Coining, 64, 67, 158, 168. Arts, Journal of the Society of, 66. Assay Pieces taken, 4, 7, 9, 10, 53-56. ” ” Weight of, 10, 56. ” Proofs, 12, 13. ” Reports, preservation of, 14, 54, 146. ” Unreported Fractions, 127, 130, 142, 143. Assayers, Two Resident, suggested, 14, 81. Assaying Apparatus, Messrs Matthey, Johnson, and Co.’s, 12-13. ” Cost of, 3, 13, 120-121, 122, 149. ” Explanation of Process of, 10-14, 56. ” Loss by, 53, 56, 102, 103, 149. Ayrton, Right Hon. A. S., 148, 152, 154, 165.

Balance, Cotton’s Automaton, described, 16, 37-42, 48, 124. ” ” Bradshaw’s Improvements in, 40-42. ” ” Pilcher’s Improvements in, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42. ” Napier’s, for Mint Office, 15, 16. ” Short’s Improved, for Bullion, described, 16-18. ” Testing the Accuracy of a, 16. Bank of England, v., 3, 36, 37, 51, 54, 55, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 101, 102, 103, 109, 110, 122, 123, 126, 150, 155, 156, 176, 185. ” ” ” Imports Gold for Coining and makes profit thereby, v., 3, 4, 126-127, 170. Bars, by Assay below standard fineness, 49, 53-56, 168. ” Ends sheared from, 20, 92, 112, 113, 116, 136, 160, 161. ” Proportion of Coined Money obtained from, 84, 92, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 160, 161. ” Rolling of, 18-25. ” Used for Coining, Dimensions of, 9, 31, 74, 75. ” ” ” Uniformity of, desirable, 9, 31, 49, 53. Barton, Sir John, 29, 31, 32. Barton’s Draw-Bench, 27-33. Barton, Mr. W. H., xvi., 29, 30, 56, 63, 86-87, 106, 172, 175, 182, 183, 184, 191. Becker, Mr. C., 25. Blanching and Annealing Blanks debases Gold Coinage, 31, 48, 49, 50, 53-56, 57, 58. Blanching, Effects of, 2, 48-49, 53-56-57, 58, 74, 75, 86, 92, 138, 143, 161. Blanks, Annealing and Blanching, debases standard of Coinage, 31, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53-56, 57, 58. ” Drying of, by sawdust, 57-58. ” Dumb, 46, 61-62. ” Examination of, 35, 41, 42, 46, 50, 61, 70. ” Filing the heavy, 42-46. ” Weighing of Individual, 23, 31, 35-36, 37-42, 43, 108-110. ” Weighing of Gold, 37, 42-44, 46. Boulton, Mr. Matthew, 61, 69, 169. Boulton’s Coining Press described, 59-61, 68, 69, 80, 169. Bradshaw, Mr. William, 40, 41. Brande, Mr. W. T., xv., 83, 120, 172, 176, 182, 195. Britt.—Brit., 75-76. Brittle Gold, Coining of, v., 6, 49-53, 98, 112, 176, 180, 181, 185, 190. ” ” Coins from, Distinctively Marked, 50. Brockages Imperfect Coins, 68-69, 70, 92, 161. Bronze Coinage, 9, 33, 64, 68, 73, 74-76, 93, 94, 118, 121, 129, 147, 162-165. ” ” Loss of Profit on, 129, 147, 162-165. ” ” Weight and Value of, 163, 164, 165. Bullion, Analysis of, 13-14, 81, 157-158. ” necessity for Analyses of, 13-14, 81. Bumping, Prevention of, 12.

Chancellor of the Exchequer, as regards the Coinage, 3, 104, 120-121, 122-123-125, 126, 127, 145, 146, 150-151, 163, 164, 170, 188, 193, 196. Charcoal, its use when Melting Gold and Silver, 6, 8, 138-139. Chimney Chambers to _Condense_ volatilized Gold and Silver, 83, 88, 103, 104-105, 128, 145, 147, 162, 166-167. Clipping Coins (the edges of), 59, 62, 64, 125, 141. Coinage, Integrity and Accuracy of the, 14, 42-44, 53-56, 70, 71-72, 123-126, 127, 157-159. Coinage, a Free, 3, 169. ” Debasement of the, 31, 48, 49, 50, 53-56, 57, 58, 120-121, 122-123, 157-159. ” Debates on the, 52, 72, 105, 106, 146-148, 149. ” International, Commission on, 36, 117, 120. Coined Money, Annealing of, 50, 51, 52. ” ” Rate per cent. obtained from Bars, 20, 30, 44, 84, 89, 92, 107-115, 117, 140, 161, 176, 179. ” ” Weight and Value of Bronze, 68, 73, 162-163, 165. ” ” Weight and Value of Gold, 3, 36, 56, 68, 70, 73, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 111, 112, 114, 117, 119, 121, 123, 124. ” ” Weight and Value of Silver, 3, 56, 65, 68, 71, 73, 132, 133, 134, 135, 146, 147, 149, 150, 154, 155, 156, 161. Coining, Article on, vii., 4, 71. ” by Contract, v., 127, 128. ” Cost of, 42, 43, 44, 51, 70, 92, 115, 117, 118-120, 121-123, 130, 141, 149-150, 155, 161. ” Early Methods of, 1-2. ” Gold, Gain in weight by, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101-104, 145, 168, 169, 173, 175, 178, 184, 189, 190. ” Gold, Loss of Weight by, 9, 16, 21, 22, 31, 49, 51, 53, 56-57, 82-83, 84-86, 87-88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 98, 99-104, 117, 119-120, 122, 125, 126, 129, 145, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177-179, 180, 184-189, 190. ” Press, Description of Boulton’s, 58-61, 68, 69, 80, 169. ” Press requires improvements, 58, 61, 69-70, 169. ” Proposal to fix the rate of Cost of, 115-123. ” Royal Prerogative, 149, 150, 166. ” Silver, Gain in Weight by, iv., 3, 95, 130, 131, 146-148, 151, 160. ” ” Loss of Weight by, v., 16, 21, 22, 74, 82, 95, 105, 106, 126, 130, 131-134, 139-140, 141, 142, 143, 145-148, 149, 151, 155, 161, 162, 175, 184, 189. Coins, Amount of Legal Tender in, 68, 76, 151, 162, 166. ” Cause of Cracked, 46, 61-62. ” Diameter of, 63, 68. ” Edges of Crenated, Milled, Grained, 2, 48, 59, 61-62, 64, 80. ” ” Lettered, 2, 62-63. ” Examination for Imperfect, 46, 62, 70. ” Imperfect, Brockages, 68, 69, 70, 92, 161. ” Incused, how produced, 69. ” Pounding of, 35, 49, 53, 71-72, 73, 125, 167. ” Protecting Edge is necessary to, 2, 46, 48, 62, 64, 67, 158, 159. ” Ringing of, 46, 62, 70. ” Sweating of, 59, 125, 141. ” Weighing of, after Coining, 39, 43, 45, 70, 108-110. ” Weight of Current and New, 36, 39, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 123, 124, 167. Collar for Coining Milled, Lettered, 48, 59, 60, 61-62, 63, 64, 67-68. Comber, Mr. P. F., 74. Copper Moneys, 68, 76, 157, 162, 164. Copper on Gold, Influence of Oxide of, 6, 49. ” is used as an Alloy, 4, 6, 7-8, 21, 46, 48, 49, 138. Corcoran, Mr. Bryan, 195. Corry, Mr. Montagu, 186. Cotton, Mr. William, 16, 37, 39, 41, 42, 124. Cotton’s Automaton Balance, 16, 37-42, 48, 124. Crenated or Milled Edge on Coined Money, 2, 48, 59, 61-62, 64, 80. Cutting-out Press described, 2, 33-35, 169.

Dies for Coining, 1, 50, 57, 59, 60, 64, 68, 76-81, 157, 158, 167. Differences in Weighing Bullion, 14-16, 89, 92, 104, 127, 137, 138, 143, 160-161, 176, 184. Difficulties in introducing Improvements, 9, 15, 40, 44, 46, 51. Disraeli, Right Hon. B., 183-186-187, 191. Draw-bench, Description of the, 27-33. ” Opposition to use of, 29-30, 31-32. ” Proper mode of using, 32-33.

Edge-Compressor, 46-48. Edge, Protecting, to Coins, necessity for, 2, 46, 48, 62, 64, 67, 158, 159. Edinburgh, H.R.H. the Duke of, 183. Ends sheared from Bars, 20, 92, 112, 113, 116, 136, 160, 161. Engravings, Initial Letters to Illustrate, 5. European Mints, Reports upon, 9, 30, 34, 42, 44, 55, 61, 74, 83, 99-100, 105, 106, 125, 147, 148, 168. Evelyn, John, 62. Exchequer, Chancellor of the, as regards the Coinage, 3, 104, 120-121, 122-125, 126, 127, 145, 146, 150-151, 163, 164, 170, 188, 193, 196.

Fairbairn, Mr. W., xvi., 172. Fenton, Mr. William, 33. File, Pilcher’s, for reducing Heavy Blanks, 42-46, 176, 179, 180. Fillets, Adjusting of, 9, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 42, 112-113. ” of uniform thickness, 25, 30-31. Fillets, Dumb, 46, 61-62, 89, 92, 112, 116. ” Flatted, 25, 26, 27. ” Rate per cent. of, obtained from Bars, 20, 92, 108, 112-113, 116, 160-161. ” Testing accuracy of, 22, 23-24. Fire-damp Indicator, 182, 183, 187, 193, 198. Flat end, explanation of term, 27. Flatting Mill described, 25, 26. Forbes, Mr. George, 64, 155. Fourpenny-pieces, Coinage of, required, 10. Fremantle, Mr. C. W., iii., iv., v., vii., 9, 14, 15, 30, 31, 55, 56, 59, 72, 91, 97, 99, 100, 102, 106, 118, 125, 127, 128, 129, 133, 135, 144, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 164-165, 168, 187, 191, 195. French War Indemnity, Weight of the, 71. Furnace, Annealing, 21, 48, 49, 57, 62, 74.

Gauges used in Coining, 22, 23-25, 35. Gauging Mill, Description of, 22-24, 26-27, 30-31. Gausby, Mr. Robert, 93. Gibson, Mr. E. S., 37, 62. Gladstone, Right Hon. W. E., iii., viii., 76, 101, 115, 187, 188, 192, 194. Goodwin, Mr. C. W., iii., 195. Gold, Annealing of, 22, 31, 48, 49, 50, 53-56, 57-58, 74. ” Assay of Standard, described, 10-14, 53-56, 81, 122. ” Brittle, Coining of, 6, 49-53, 98, 105, 112, 176, 180, 181, 185, 190. ” Coin, when worn, invariably below standard, 48, 49, 53-56, 168. ” Coinage, Statement showing details of, 89, 92. ” Coining, Authority for, 3, 158, 166. ” Coins, Weight and Value of Worn and Light, 53-56, 66, 67. ” Copper is used to alloy, 4, 6, 7-8, 21, 46, 48-49, 53-56. ” Gain by Coining, 86, 87, 88-89, 90-91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101-104, 145, 168, 169, 173, 175, 178, 184, 189, 190. ” Loss by Annealing, 21, 22, 31, 48, 49, 53-56, 57, 86, 92. ” ” Coining, 9, 16, 21, 22, 31, 49, 51, 53, 56-57, 82-83, 84-86, 87-88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 98, 99-104, 117, 119-120, 122, 125, 126, 129, 145, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177-179, 180, 184-189, 190. ” ” Melting, 86, 87, 96, 97, 98, 99-104, 105, 106, 145, 178, 184, 190. ” Melting of, described, 5-7, 46, 53, 56, 129, 144. ” Price of Standard, 3, 55, 66, 67, 70, 73, 84, 120, 122, 130. ” Refining of, 14, 49, 50, 52, 53, 81-82, 104, 108. Gold Standard, 3, 4, 36, 53-66, 70, 73, 84, 120. ” ” affected by Antimony, 14, 19, 49, 50, 51, 176, 180, 181, 185, 190. ” ” affected by Arsenic, 14, 49, 50, 51, 176, 180, 181, 185, 190. ” ” affected by Lead, 6, 14, 49, 51, 81. ” ” ” Mercury, 14, 81. ” ” ” Osmium-Iridium, 81. ” ” ” Oxide of Copper, 6, 49. ” ” ” Palladium, 81. ” ” ” Platinum, 81. ” ” ” Tin, 14, 81. ” ” ” Zinc, 6, 14. ” Sweep recovered after Coinage of, 82, 83, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 98, 106-107. ” ” ” Melting of, 96, 97, 98, 106-107. ” Weight and Value of Coined, 56, 84, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 106, 111, 114, 121, 167, 178, 190. ” and Silver Refining of, 81-82, 104, 138, 160. ” while at the Mint bears no interest, 126. Graham, Mr. John, 15, 44, 71, 94, 98, 108, 112, 163, 182, 185, 187, 191, 196, 197. ” ” Thomas, iii., iv., vii., viii., ix., xi., xv., xvi., 50, 51, 54, 71, 83, 93, 118, 119, 144, 153, 154, 155, 164-165, 170, 172, 174, 180, 182, 183, 187, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198. Graphite Pots for Melting, 5, 129. Granville, Right Hon. Earl, 166.

Hatchett, Experiments of, 49, 157. Hatchett, Mr. C., 49, 157. Hawkins, Mr. Edward, 62. Herschel, Sir J. F. W., 54, 167. Hofmann, Dr. A. W., xv., xvi., 172, 189. Holland, Mr. P. H., 183. Hubbard, Mr. J. G., 55, 121. Hunt, Mr. Robert, 182, 183.

Imperfect Coins, Brockages, 68, 69, 70, 92, 161. Importation of Ingots for Coining, 3, 4, 127, 170. Improvements, Difficulties attending introduction of, 9, 15, 40, 44, 46, 51. Indemnity, Weight of the French War, 71. Indenture, Weight and Fineness of each Coin was fixed by Mint, 36, 71, 108, 166. Indicator, Fire-damp, 182, 183, 187, 193, 198. Ingots, “Potting” of, 4. Integrity and Accuracy of the Coinage, 14, 42-44, 53-56, 70, 71-72, 123-125, 127, 157-159, 166-167. International Coinage, Report of Commissioners on, 36, 119, 120. Italy, Bronze Coinage of, 64.

Jones, Mr. Meredith, 47, 179, 180. Journey, Weight a, 36, 70.

Keys of Strongholds, 173. Kinnaird, Right Hon. Lord, iii.-v., vii., ix., xiii., 51, 52, 54, 56, 91, 97, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 108, 126, 133, 135, 145-147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 163, 164, 171, 183, 186, 188, 192-199. ” Hon. A., M.P., 192, 194.

Lansdowne, Marquess of, iv., ix., 52, 99, 100, 104, 105, 106, 146, 147-148, 149, 152, 171. Legal Tender, Amount of Coins in, 68, 76, 151, 162, 166. Loss by Annealing, 9, 21, 22, 31, 48, 49, 53-56, 86, 92, 138, 161, 162. ” by Coining Bronze, 129, 147, 162-165. ” ” Gold, 9, 16, 21, 22, 31, 49, 51, 53, 56-57, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87-88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 98, 99-104, 117, 119, 120, 122, 125, 126, 129, 145, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177-179, 180, 184-189, 190. ” ” Silver, v., 16, 21, 22, 74, 82, 95, 105, 106, 126, 130, 131-133, 139-140, 141, 142, 143, 145-148, 149. ” by Melting Gold, 86-87, 96, 97, 98, 99-104, 105, 106, 145, 178, 184, 190. ” by Melting Silver, 131, 134-135, 136-142, 143, 144, 184, 189. ” of Profit on Silver Coinage, v., 129, 130, 146, 147, 148-151-156. Lowe, Right Hon. Robert, iii., v., ix., 104, 120, 127, 150, 151, 164, 166, 171, 188, 192, 193, 196. Lowndes, Mr. W., 2, 159. Lowry, Mr. J. W., 37.

Marking Machine, Jones’s, 46-48. Martin, Mr. John, 30. Mathison, Mr. Gilbert F., 99. Melting Gold, Loss by, 53, 86, 87, 96, 97, 98, 99-104, 105, 106, 145, 178, 184, 190. Melting Gold, Process of, described, 5-7, 46, 53, 56, 129, 144. Melting Silver, Process of, described, 7-9, 46, 129, 138-145. Melting Silver, Gain by, 134-135, 136, 137, 142, 143. ” ” Loss by, 131, 134-135, 136-142, 143, 144, 184, 189. ” Value of Sweep recovered from Gold, 96, 97, 98, 106-107. ” Value of Sweep recovered from Silver, 106, 107, 131, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 144. Metals, Annealing of, _see_ Annealing. Miller, Mr. John, 66. ” ” Wm., 64, 65, 67, 155, 156. Mint Indenture formerly fixed Weight and Fineness of Coins, 36, 71, 108, 166. Mint Notes, Issue of, for Bullion, 170. Mint premises, building of New, v., 127, 128. Money, Hammered and Milled, 1, 2, 159. Moneyers, The Company of, 82, 87, 99, 112. Monteagle, Lord, 166. Murray, Mr. John, 31.

Napier, Mr. James M., 15, 16, 34, 37, 40, 42, 44, 59, 61, 74, 108, 147, 148, 169.

Oakes, Mr., 182. Oil on Scissel, 29, 32, 33, 35, 86, 87, 98, 99, 131, 136, 139, 140, 174, 175, 176. ” to Lubricate Fillets, 32, 33, 176. Orders, “Circulating,” 94. Office, System of Promotion to, v., viii., 15, 52, 56, 94, 108, 115, 128, 153, 169, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 182.

Parliament, Acts of, relating to the Coinage, 3, 36, 56, 71, 72, 73, 109, 124, 150, 157, 159, 166. Palmerston, Lord, xv., 140, 171. Pepys, Samuel, Diary of, 158, 159. Percy, Dr., 6, 52. Pilcher, Mr. Richard, 37, 39, 42, 44, 47, 177, 179, 180. Pilcher’s File, 42-46, 176, 179, 180. Playfair, Dr. Lyon, iii., iv., 195, 196. Pounding of Coins, its use and abuse, 35, 49, 53, 71-72, 73, 125, 167. Proclamations relating to the Coinage, 68, 76. Promotion to Office, System of, v., viii., 15, 52, 56, 94, 108, 115, 128, 153, 169, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 182. Pyx Pieces, Weight of, 56, 92, 112, 113, 114, 161. ” Suggestions as to the Trial of the, 53-54, 56. ” The Trial of the, 49, 56, 70, 123-124, 166-167.

Queen, Her Majesty the, 166, 168, 183.

Rejected Blanks, 30, 32, 35, 42-44, 46, 92, 107-110, 161, 170, 179, 184, 189. Rejected Coins, 42-44, 46, 107-110. ” explanation of term, 44. Remedy allowed, 32, 39, 43, 108. ” explanation of term, 39, 167. ” practically used, 32, 71-72, 108-110, 112. Rennie, Mr. G., xvi., 172. Reports on Mint, 14, 118-119, 127, 147. Roberts, Mr. W. C., v., 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 74, 99, 100, 105, 129, 144, 147, 153, 154. Rolling Mill, 18-20, 22-23, 26-27, 30-31. Rolling Mills, Accuracy to be obtained by, 23, 25, 27, 30-31. Rollers, Steel, 26, 27, 30, 31. Rossie, Lord, _see_ Kinnaird, Lord. Ryan, Sir Edward, 166.

Scissel, Meaning of the word, 2, 35. ” Melting of, 8, 136-137. ” Oil upon, 29, 32, 33, 35, 86, 87, 98, 99, 131, 139, 140, 174, 175, 176. Seyd, Mr. Ernest, 54-55, 130. Shears, Description of, 19, 20, 21, 25, 30, 31. Short, Mr. S. R., 16. Silver copper used to alloy, 7-8, 46, 49. Silver, Annealing of, 2, 31, 72-74, 143, 161, 162. ” as an Alloy for Gold, 13, 53, 81. ” Assaying of Standard, 13. ” Authority for Coining, 3, 166, 167. ” Coinage, Loss of Profit or Seigniorage on, v., 129-130, 146, 147, 148-151-156. ” ” Profit or Seigniorage derived from, iv., 3, 146-148, 151, 152, 153, 154-156, 157-159. ” ” Tabular Statement showing details of, 159, 160, 161, 162. ” ” Weight and Value of, 65, 132-135, 146, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 160, 161, 167. ” Coining of, 7, 67, 72, 74, 116, 118, 121, 129, 143, 159-161. ” Coins, Weight and Value of Worn and Light, 64-65, 66, 67, 130, 146, 152, 155, 156. ” Gain by Coining, 95, 130, 131, 160. ” ” Melting, 134-135, 136, 137. ” Loss by Annealing, 31, 72-74, 143, 161, 162. ” ” Coining, v., 16, 21, 22, 74, 82, 95, 105, 106, 126, 130, 131-133, 139-140, 141, 142, 143, 145-148, 149. ” ” Melting, 131, 134-135, 136-142, 143, 144, 184, 189. ” Melting of, 7-9, 46, 129, 138-145. ” Standard, 3, 8, 73, 129, 130, 142, 157. ” Sweep recovered from Coinage, 82, 83, 86, 106-107, 131, 132, 133, 144. ” Sweep recovered from Melting, 106-107, 131, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 144. Simon, Thomas, Petition Crown of, 62-64. Smith, Colonel J. T., 140-141, 142-143. ” Dr. Angus R., 183. ” Mr. Richard, 6. Soap for Lubricating Fillets, 32, 33. Sovereign, Legal and Current Weight of, 39, 66, 68, 70, 73, 120, 122-123, 124. ” Sweating of, 59, 125, 141. Steel Rollers, 26-27, 30-31. ” Used for Dies, 76-81, 157-158. Sterry, Mr. Charles, 194. Strongholds, the Keys of the, 173. Supply, or Scrap Bullion, 86, 98, 161, 162. Sweep, explanation of term, 86, 106, 140. ” recovered from Gold Coinage, 52, 82, 83, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 98, 106-107. ” ” ” Silver Coinage, 82, 83, 86, 106-107, 131, 132, 133, 144. ” ” ” Gold Melting, 96, 97, 98, 106-107. ” ” ” Silver Melting, 106, 107, 131, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 144.

_Times_ newspaper, Letters in the, 37, 52, 54-55, 72. Tomlino, Colonel, 169. Tomlinson’s Cyclopædia, article on coining, viii., 4, 71. Trevelyan, Sir Charles, 195. Trier, Duties of the, 26, 31, 33, 35-36.

Value of Gain, _see_ Gold, Silver, Gain by Coining. ” Loss sustained, 31, 65, 67, 83, 84, 86, 89-91, 96-97, 98-99-100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 125, 128, 129, 131-135, 137, 143, 144, 145-149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155-156, 161, 163, 164, 165, 174, 178, 179, 190. ” Money Coined in each Coinage, _see_ Coined Money. ” Standard Gold, _see_ Gold, price of Standard. ” Sweep recovered, _see_ Sweep recovered. Versmann, Mr. F., 195. Volatilization of Gold and Silver in Coinage operations, 83, 88, 103, 104-105, 128, 145, 147, 162.

Wages System, Suggested new one, 115-119, 121-123. ” ” under which paid for Coining, 46, 115-119. ” ” under which paid for Melting, 46, 116-117. Warington, Mr. Robert, 81. Waste, _see_ Coining, Loss by. Weighing Bullion, Differences made in, 14-16, 89, 92, 104, 127, 137, 138, 143, 160-161, 176, 184. ” ” System of, 14-16, 136, 137, 138. ” Machines, Cotton’s Automaton, 16, 37-42, 48, 124. ” ” ” Bradshaw’s Improvements in, 40-42. ” ” ” Pilcher’s Improvements in, 37, 39-40, 42. ” ” Napier’s, for Mint Office, 15, 16. ” ” Short’s, for Bullion, 16-18. Wellington, Duke of, 54. Westbury, Lord, 166, 167. Wilson, Mr. C. Rivers, 14, 127, 147. Wood, Mr. Halder, 195. Worn Coins below Standard by Assay, 48-49, 53-56, 57. ” ” Weight and Value of Gold, 53-56, 66, 67. ” ” ” ” Silver, 64-65, 66, 67, 130, 146, 152, 155-156. Worn-out Melting-Pots, 139, 140.

Zinc causes difficulty in Coining Bronze, 75. ” ” ” ” Gold, 6, 14.

“THE ROYAL MINT.”—THIRD EDITION

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

Especially worthy of official attention, and is accompanied by suggestions for an amended system.—_Times._

According to Mr. Ansell, who is every way entitled to credit, great loss has frequently arisen through the promotion of incompetent men who cannot handle properly the fine instruments employed.... The whole subject is of special interest at the present time, and Mr. Ansell’s contribution to the facts of the discussion will be frequently appealed to.—_Economist._

From an extensive knowledge of the practical working of the Royal Mint, Mr. Ansell has given the educated world a very clear and comprehensive account of the operations of that institution, and has endeavoured to show—and, we are convinced, has succeeded in showing—the nature of the defects through which it has for a long period proved no inconsiderable burden to the country. The writer was elected to his post through his known scientific and technical attainments; and the work now before us is worthy of his reputation.... The practical aim of the book is to prove that the Royal Mint should no longer be a burden to the country, and that the losses now entailed could, by a better system of management and supervision, be reduced practically to _nil_.—_Money Market Review._

Mr. Ansell enters fully into the very interesting details of the various processes involved in coining for the Bank; from the reception of the ingots to their conversion into the circulating medium of the realm. The text is much assisted by numerous well-executed woodcuts and steel engravings, which serve to explain the internal economy of the Mint, and the various pieces of elaborate machinery required to produce the enormous quantity of money which must be kept in use in a country having the extended commercial interests of England.... Mr. Ansell’s book is extremely opportune, and deserves careful perusal.—_Examiner and London Review._

The author of this book is, unquestionably, thoroughly versed in the metallurgical, chemical, and mechanical details of the subjects treated therein.—_Morning Advertiser._

Mr. Ansell having been employed in the Mint, is well qualified to speak on the subject of which he treats. At this juncture, when discussions with regard to that establishment and the coinage are before the Legislature, the book will be well worthy of the perusal of those taking part in the controversy.—_Standard._

An interesting work relating to the operations of that establishment.—_Daily News._

Those interested in the subject may investigate the alleged shortcomings of the administration by its light, and ascertain if the Bill of Mr. Lowe will effect any of the needed reforms, and to what extent. The contents of the book are of an important character, and merit careful consideration.—_Bullionist._

Mr. Ansell has at command a thoroughly practical, official, and scientific knowledge of his subject; and from the position which he occupied, is entitled to speak with authority. His opinions, therefore, on the economical bearings of the coinage discussion, both social and political, are of real interest.... The chief value of the work is that we are here shown, by one who for a long time held responsible office, what he considers to be the faults of the existing system.... Now that the Mastership of the Mint has become vacant, and the question is before the country how it shall be filled, the interest of the book, great in itself, is enhanced.—_Financier._

We wish to direct attention to a very valuable work entitled “The Royal Mint,” by Mr. G. F. Ansell. The whole question of coinage is under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is expected to make several changes in the organisation and management of the Mint, therefore Mr. Ansell’s work will no doubt be carefully perused by Members of the House of Commons, as it throws much light on every branch of working up the gold and silver into coins.—_London Mercantile Journal._

This work will be read with much interest as public attention has so recently been drawn to the management of the Mint. The author writes from his own personal experience, having been engaged as an authoritative member of the staff under the late master, Mr. Thomas Graham. The author asserts that each of his statements is the result of his actual experience, and capable of proof. The work is amply illustrated with some very fine engravings, which are fully explained in the text. Mr. Ansell’s suggestions for the better scientific and official management of the Mint should command serious attention.—_Public Opinion._

This is a most important work, and it has been published opportunely.... We cannot even indicate the many points of importance to which Mr. Ansell draws our attention, but while giving the work general commendation, we heartily advise its perusal by all who are in any way interested in the subject.—_Civil Service Gazette._

The present position of affairs at the Royal Mint, and the interesting service which has been rendered by Lord Kinnaird in the discussion in the House of Lords on the Coinage Bill, cannot fail to secure for Mr. Ansell’s skilfully prepared book more than an ordinary amount of attention.... The management of the Mint is a matter of national importance, and the practical experience and thorough knowledge of mechanics possessed by Mr. Ansell have enabled him to produce a comprehensive and valuable book of reference.—_Dundee Advertiser._

We receive with much satisfaction so lucid an account of the working of the Mint, and the highly important suggestions for its better management, as set forth in Mr. G. F. Ansell’s excellent treatise.... The book now under notice, which is dedicated to Lord Kinnaird, will tend very much to enlighten all who may take an interest in this very important subject.—_Court Journal._

Mr. Ansell frequently pauses to point out how, according to the conclusions formed from his personal observations and mechanical knowledge, the processes of manufacture might be simplified or cheapened. He insists that if the mechanical improvements suggested by him were followed out “the result would be a clear saving of £4,000 a year.”—_Echo._

No one needs any longer to complain of want of information as to the manner in which the coinage of the country is prepared, or what are the duties of those who are entrusted with the important duty of supervising its mintage. In a comparatively small compass this book tells all that can be said on these heads, besides giving other details, the purpose of which is as practical as the manner of description is precise and positive.—_Bell’s Weekly Messenger._

In addition to the information to be found in the book regarding the coining of money, those interested in mechanical details will doubtless read with pleasure the minute description of the whole of the machinery in use in the Mint. The book has done and will do good service.—_South London Press._

Mr. Ansell’s book is cleverly written, and will probably lead to enquiry.—_City Press._

This is in many respects a remarkable work, for it displays both scientific and technical knowledge on the subject of the coinage to an extent that at the present time can scarcely be surpassed.... The book is full of interest, for the facts are carefully marshalled, and the illustrations with which the volume is enriched are apposite and excellent. We can, therefore, unhesitatingly recommend the work to such of our readers as take an interest in such subjects.—_Scotsman._

We will close with two quotations from this really valuable book, containing, as it does, so much that is interesting, and showing so intimate an acquaintance on the author’s part with the subject of which it treats.—_Edinburgh Evening Courant._

It is clear, however, that the evils proverbially connected with money are in full force at the Royal Mint: anxiety weighs down the higher authorities, heart-burnings prevail amongst the lower, irregularities exist amongst the subordinates. It is probable that some change has taken place in the management of matters since the author was in the position of an eye-witness; but the general value of his work is not likely to have been much diminished thereby.—_Illustrated London News._

LONDON: EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.

PRINTED BY VIRTUE AND CO., CITY ROAD, LONDON.