FIRST SCHEDULE._The Royal Mint

+--------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

| | Standard Weight. | Least Current Weight.|

| Denomination of +-----------+----------+-----------+----------+

+--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+

| Five Pound | 616·37239 | 39·94028 | 612·50000 | 39·68935 |

| Two Pound | 246·54895 | 15·97611 | 245·00000 | 5·87574 |

| Sovereign | 123·27447 | 7·98805 | 122·50000 | 7·93787 |

| Half-Sovereign | 61·63723 | 3·99402 | 61·12500 | 3·96083 |

| | | | | |

+--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+

| Crown | 436·36363 | 28·27590 | — | — |

| Half-Crown | 218·18181 | 14·13795 | — | — |

| Florin | 174·54545 | 11·31036 | — | — |

| Shilling | 87·27272 | 5·65518 | — | — |

| Sixpence | 43·63636 | 2·82759 | — | — |

| Groat or Fourpence| 29·09090 | 1·88506 | — | — |

| Threepence | 21·81818 | 1·41379 | — | — |

| Twopence | 14·54545 | 0·94253 | — | — |

| Penny | 7·27272 | 0·47126 | — | — |

+--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+

| Penny | 145·83333 | 9·44984 | — | — |

| Halfpenny | 87·50000 | 5·66990 | — | — |

| Farthing | 43·75000 | 2·83495 | — | — |

+--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+

+--------------------+----------------+----------------------------+

| | | Remedy Allowance. |

| Denomination of | +-----------------+----------+

| | Fineness. +--------+--------+Fineness. |

+--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+

| Five Pound | Eleven-twelfths| 1·00000| 0·06479| |

| Two Pound | fine gold, | 0·40000| 0·02592| 0·002 |

| Sovereign | one-twelfth | 0·20000| 0·01296| |

| Half-Sovereign | alloy; | 0·10000| 0·00648| |

+--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+

| Crown | | 1·81818| 0·11781| |

| Half-Crown | | 0·90909| 0·05890| |

| Florin | Thirty-seven | 0·72727| 0·04712| |

| Shilling | fortieths fine| 0·36363| 0·02356| |

| Sixpence | silver, | 0·18181| 0·01178| 0·004 |

| Groat or Fourpence| three-fortieths| 0·12121| 0·00785| |

| Threepence | alloy; or | 0·09090| 0·00589| |

| Twopence | millesimal | 0·06060| 0·00392| |

| Penny | fineness 925·| 0·03030| 0·00196| |

+--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+

| Penny | Mixed metal, | 2·91666| 0·18899| |

| Farthing | and zinc. | 0·87500| 0·05669| |

+--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+

The weight and fineness of the coins specified in this

Schedule are according to what is provided by the

Act fifty-six George III., chapter sixty-eight, that

the gold coin of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Ireland should hold such weight and fineness as

were prescribed in the then existing Mint indenture

(that is to say), that there should be nine hundred

and thirty-four sovereigns and one ten-shilling piece

contained in twenty pounds weight troy of standard

gold, of the fineness at the trial of the same of

twenty-two carats fine gold and two carats of alloy in

the pound weight troy; and further, as regards silver

coin, that there should be sixty-six shillings in

every pound troy of standard silver of the fineness

of eleven ounces two pennyweights of fine silver and

eighteen pennyweights of alloy in every pound weight

troy.

In annealing the precious metals, it is intended to use large retorts

of Stourbridge clay instead of the naked flame, as is the present

practice. The advantage of using retorts will be the protection

they will afford to the substances to be annealed, and the uniform

temperature at which they may be kept for any required time. So great

are the obstacles to improvement in the British Mint, that, although

this suggestion was made by me, and plans were prepared, in June,

1861, the necessary alterations have not yet been attempted; indeed,

it has been reserved to Mr. P. F. Comber, the intelligent chief coiner

of the New Mint in Melbourne, to adopt this suggestion. The furnace

for his use has been made by Messrs. Deane, of Arthur Street East,

London Bridge, who, from experience, know this kind of furnace to be

successful; indeed, it has been long used to gain higher temperatures

than are required for metals in the annealing of glass, pottery, &c.

I have recently been permitted to make a long series of experiments

at the works of the Patent Fuel Company, on their wharf at Deptford,

and these have convinced me that their mode of converting hydrocarbons

into vapour, and burning that vapour with a proper supply of air under

pressure, could be applied in the Mint with great advantage to the

heating of the annealing furnaces, especially if the authorities of

that department should adopt the retorts proposed.

In my previous editions I have suggested the use of these retorts,

and I am glad to see that the Royal Mint is likely to adopt them, for

Mr. Napier recommends them in his Report, and Mr. Roberts not only

coincides in that recommendation, but specifically says, “It is a

question for consideration whether muffles of clay instead of iron, and

gas as fuel, might not be used with advantage.”

The coinage of bronze is somewhat new; that is to say, it has, after

centuries, been re-introduced; and as little is known respecting it, it

will be well to consider one or two circumstances connected therewith.

The dimensions of the bars are previously given,[45] those measurements

were determined by me after much troublesome experimenting, and

the bars are found to be capable of producing the best blanks, as

regards equality of weight one for another, with the least labour.

In the rolling of bronze there are some singular facts to be noted;

for instance, the finding the same metal at one time ductile, and at

another absolutely brittle; yet if the bronze has been properly melted,

with due precaution to avoid the access of atmospheric oxygen, it is

uniformly malleable and ductile, and may be rolled from such bars as

described without once annealing. It is sometimes preferred not to use

the knowledge gained, and then complications commence. The following

mode of operating will meet all cases:—The bars may be rolled down to

half their thickness, and then will anneal perfectly well in an open

furnace on an iron truck. The heating should be conducted rapidly,

and when the fillets get to a full red heat they should be withdrawn,

thrown out singly on the floor, and allowed to remain till perfectly

cold. Should any bars be annealed in the rough state, they must be kept

away from water. A little water thrown upon the end of a bar when red

hot causes it to become rotten throughout, and on submission to any

pressure it will fall to pieces as would gingerbread; yet if the bars

be partly rolled to a certain proportion of their thickness, they may

be plunged at once into cold water without damaging them for work.

After annealing, the fillets should be blanched in diluted sulphuric

acid, containing one per cent. of the ordinary commercial acid. It is

well to save time by blanching two or three tons at a time; but a few

minutes effect all that is required—that is, the separation of the

film of oxide from the surface. The film is then removed by a mop made

of rag or cotton waste, and with little labour a few boys may clean

many tons in a day. Fillets which have been blanched before being

rolled produce clean and bright blanks. The blanks require somewhat

different treatment. It is better to anneal them in copper tubes. The

bottom of the tube should be covered to about the depth of an inch

with charcoal dust, then the tube filled with blanks, except allowing

for another layer of coarse charcoal dust, and the top put on to the

tube. The annealing should not occupy more than thirty-six minutes;

the highest temperature should be that at which the tube looks a full

reddish white, and this should be gained as rapidly as possible. The

tube, after removal from the furnace, should be allowed to remain at

rest till perfectly cold. The charcoal is intended to combine with the

oxygen, which would otherwise combine with the metals of the bronze

during the heating and the cooling of the blanks in the copper tubes.

Having regard to the production of perfect coins, the blanks should be

cooled in an atmosphere of ordinary coal gas, by which every particle

of oxygen is prevented from access, and a great part of the oxides

already existing in the alloy reduced by the combination of their

oxygen with the hydrogen of the coal gas, thus leaving the blanks

somewhat porous, and comparatively soft, so that, when coined, the

metal wholly fills the work on the dies, and the coin is produced with

a good protecting edge. Bronze as used at the Royal Mint consisting of

95 of copper, 4 tin, and 1 zinc in 100 parts—zinc should be omitted

because it causes useless labour—may be coined to great perfection

if the blanks be cooled in coal gas after annealing: whereas bronze

of a far softer nature cannot be made to fill the work of the dies

satisfactorily by any other method yet known, unless the engraving

on the dies be very shallow. The bronze coins, which have replaced

the old copper money, have what is considered to be an innovation in

the inscription by the repetition of the T in the abbreviation of

Britanniarum, which is simply the classical mode of expressing in an

abbreviated form the number of the possessions which together form

Great Britain; it is equivalent to MS., which is the abbreviation for

manuscript, while MSS. represents the word manuscripts; so BRITT.

represents the cluster of islands or possessions called Great Britain.

The objection to BRITT., on the ground of its being an innovation, is

singular, as this word occurs on the shillings of George III., coined

in 1816. It is also curious that the original dies for the bronze

coinage were made to carry BRIT. only, until a coin found its way

into the hands of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, who at once pointed

out the error, and thus caused the re-introduction of the classical

BRITT. Mr. Gladstone also suggested the issue of octagonal bronze

coins, which undoubtedly would have been a mistake had it been adopted.

Perhaps it may not be uninteresting to record that the pattern penny in

bronze, which was submitted to and approved by her Majesty, was lost

in its passage through the post, for the postman opened the letter and

destroyed both it and the penny in a closet in the Royal Mint. Copper

and bronze money are merely tokens; it is therefore well to reduce such

tokens to as low a weight as is consistent with the rigidity of the

coin.

[Footnote 45: See page 9.]

By Royal Proclamation, dated at Windsor, 13th of May, 1869, the

old copper moneys are declared illegal; or, in the words of the

proclamation, “No copper moneys whatsoever (other than and except

such bronze moneys as are now current by virtue of our proclamation

bearing date the 17th day of December, 1860, or any proclamation dated

subsequently to the said 17th day of December, 1860) shall be allowed

to pass or be current in any payment whatsoever within the kingdom of

Great Britain and Ireland after the 31st of December, 1869.” So that

since that date no copper moneys have been legally paid away. This,

however, will not affect those who wish to preserve copper coins of

this or former reigns as specimens.

As dies are the means by which metal becomes COIN, it will be material

to add the processes of their manufacture. Experience alone can

indicate the proper steel to be used, so that it is useless to attempt

a description. But the form of the steel is a matter upon which

die-makers differ. Some use square bars of that metal, and cut off

pieces, which are forged into the proper form for dies; however, the

more experienced die-makers use round bars of steel, which are cut by a

tool somewhat of the shape of the bar, so that when the tool is struck

every part of its edge begins to cut. The tool is so shaped as to leave

the end of the bar from which the piece has been cut quite square, so

that it may form the bottom for the next piece cut off. The piece of

steel thus cut off is taken to a lathe, where its upper end is turned

somewhat into the form of the top of a sugar-loaf; the depth of this

form being determined by the style of work to be impressed upon the

steel when it is to be formed into a die. For the original matrix the

piece of steel is turned to a flat end, and is usually strengthened by

driving a carefully-welded ring of hot iron on to it: although some

prefer thus to simply shrink on a ring of iron, the more experienced

choose welding, because that which is shrunk on is never so solid,

and is apt to enclose air bubbles, which prevent the mass becoming

one, thus permitting an undue yield in a faulty spot when pressure is

applied. In the making of a matrix, the steel is softened to different

extents by different engravers, but all soften more or less. The steel

having been softened, the engraver cuts with a kind of hand chisel,

by a motion of the wrist, such design as may be required, and after

many months of work produces a finished matrix, from which he requires

to produce many copies, because this one matrix would itself soon

wear out, and by frequent use would be more exposed to risk. It is,

therefore, hardened to admit of its being submitted to such pressure

from another piece of steel as to impart its design to that steel

without itself being distorted by the pressure. For this purpose the

matrix is fitted with a ring of iron round its upper part, which, when

fitted on, gives the engraved part the appearance of being the bottom

of a cup; this cup is filled with a paste made of beer grounds and

fine charcoal dust, or, better still, with that small charcoal which

is found behind the flue of the forge—a kind of soot produced by the

spent sparks which fly upwards, and which is so much in request by the

file-makers. Thus protected, the matrix should be placed in the naked

fire wholly enclosed with fuel, and heated as rapidly as possible,

keeping it constantly turned round and round, so as to insure each

particle of its mass being equally heated; a quarter of an hour should

be long enough to produce the necessary temperature. It must be borne

in mind that the great principle is to avoid the decarbonisation of

the steel, therefore the less time that is occupied the better. The

temperature of the matrix should be that rich and peculiar full red

which for a few seconds is visible before white heat supervenes, for

a white heat once gained causes the steel to scale off, and renders

the matrix partially worthless. This peculiar temperature once gained,

the matrix must be permitted to remain for three minutes in the fire

without any blast. If it should get too hot it must be cooled by adding

exhausted fuel from the hearth. At the end of three minutes’ quiescent

heating it may be assumed that the centre of the matrix has become of

the same temperature as its outer particles; it is then taken quickly

from the furnace and placed in a kind of colander, so that water may

wholly envelope it, and yet flow freely past it while its under surface

is wholly exposed. The matrix C is placed in the colander D, Fig.

22, bottom upwards, and is then brought immediately under the pipe

dependent from a kind of funnel A, which should hold at least a hundred

gallons of cold water; the bottom of the pipe must be secured by a plug

of wood B, capable of being knocked out instantaneously. This is the

most important process in the hardening of the matrix, and requires

considerable steadiness with great rapidity of motion. The matrix

being held in the colander about half an inch above a large surface

of water E, and immediately under the centre of the plugged pipe from

the funnel, the plug B is knocked out from the pipe, and the water

falls in a continuous stream wholly unbroken until striking the very

centre of the base of the matrix, thus securing the commencement of the

process of hardening FROM THE CENTRE. So soon as this first shock of

the flowing water has been effected, the matrix must be sunk into the

vessel of water below, until it is uniformly covered to the depth of

half an inch, and must be held there until the whole of the water from

the funnel has run out; then the matrix must be sunk to the bottom of

the vessel of water, and allowed to remain till absolutely cold. If it

be removed before it be cooled throughout, there is great danger of a

crack on its surface being produced by the expansion from within. The

plug is preferred to a tap in the pipe from which the water is to flow,

because the turning of a tap gives a motion to the water, which causes

it to fall in a hollow stream, and thus obviates the very effect which

it is desired to produce. This process has been followed for more than

thirty years, and during that time the manufacturer who uses it—one of

the most eminent engravers and die-makers in Europe—has never met with

any accident, nor has he found any failure. I have recently visited a

manufactory in South Yorkshire in which many thousands of dies are made

annually on this system, without an instance of failure. Die-makers,

after the hardening, proceed as follows:—Remove the paste of charcoal

from the face of the matrix, and then clean the face of the die with

hydrochloric acid. After this it is tempered—that is to say, it is

raised to a temperature which somewhat relaxes the rigidity of its

particles; this is commonly judged of by the COLOUR which the face of

the matrix assumes; but since no two men are likely to distinguish the

same tint, nor can any one actually judge of colour unerringly, it is

wise to adopt another standard, the one most preferred being to temper

the matrix until the engraver can make a good graver _bite_ while the

die is hot. The tempered die may be cooled by plunging it either into

oil or into water as soon as the tempering has reached the desired

point. If at this instant the tempering cease, when the die is dead

cold the graver will no longer touch the steel, which is now just so

hard as to resist a blow without fracture. It is next polished, and is

then fit for use; that is to say, is fit for the multiplication of dies

from itself.

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

The multiplication consists in the taking a set of punches, each

being an exact copy of the matrix. The steel, having been formed

into masses with sugar-loaf tops in accordance with the depth of the

engraving, is ready to receive the impression from the matrix, just

as hot sealing-wax is ready to receive the impression from a signet.

The matrix is placed beneath a press, and on its face is placed the

sugar-loaf end of the annealed mass of steel; a very light blow is

given by the press, so as to obtain simply the sinking of the first

portion of the cone, for if a violent blow be given at this stage it is

manifest that a large mass of steel is forced into a smaller space; in

other words, the particles of steel which formed the cone are pressed

into a dense mass on the surface of the intended punch, and prepare a

crack, which by-and-by developes itself. After this light blow, the

partly-formed punch is placed in a covered pot filled with charcoal,

and heated in a furnace just as was described for the hardening of

the matrix, bearing in mind that it is the cooling, not the heating,

which softens the steel. So soon as the heating has been raised to the

point before indicated, the pot containing the punch is removed, and

bedded in hot ashes, and there left to cool as slowly as possible; it

should be forty hours before it becomes cold. When cold it is cleaned,

receives a second very light blow under the press, examined, afterwards

receiving a third very light blow, and is then a second time annealed,

&c. The number of blows required to bring out to perfection on the

punch the work on the matrix, depends entirely upon the size of the

matrix and the depth of the work engraved upon it. For these reasons,

no accurate instructions can be given; but for all cases light blows

should be made, because all metals mould more readily under gentle

treatment.

From the punch is obtained, by processes which should be in every way

similar, a series of dies for the use of the coining press. Each die

from the punch is examined, and has the figures for the date impressed

upon it before it is hardened. The dies are of two kinds: one, C, the

obverse, with a long neck, upon which the collar B fits freely, and a

second, the reverse, with a short neck, so that the face of the die

just enters the collar sufficiently to meet and compress the blank.

Fig. 23 demonstrates these two dies, and exhibits the collar, showing

at B the milled interior circle, which gives the crenated edge to the

finished coin at its formation. For the past few years the reverse die

has been made to carry, in addition to its recognised device, a small

number, with a view to determine at which coining press, and on what

particular day, that die was used, that bad work might be traced to an

individual. It need hardly be said that the accidents encountered in

daily work overcome the object thus sought, for a die may last either

minutes or days in wear owing to the irregularities of the steel from

which it is made, and besides, the boys who work the presses are of

necessity changed at irregular intervals.

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

The long-necked die is fitted into a bolster D, as shown in Fig. 23,

and is prevented from shifting its position in that bolster by a plug

of iron indicated at E. The bolster, with its die, is secured in a kind

of dish beneath the screw of the press by a series of screws, which

admit of adjusting the bolster so that the die it carries shall be

placed immediately beneath the upper die, which is carried on the main

screw G of the press, as may be seen at page 60.

There is little doubt but that certain stages of die manufacture

would be rendered more effective if more reasonable treatment were

employed. It has yet to be demonstrated that carbon steel is the best

metal that can be employed, for it seems more than probable that some

alloys would render a metal which would possess within itself more of

the properties which are necessary for the perfecting a die, and for

its duration when in use. For the elimination of such an alloy we must

await the time when the non-resident assayers are replaced by resident

chemists who, during the leisure times in the Mint, will be willing

and glad to experiment on some of the compounds of iron with the rarer

metals, for in that field will surely be found a combination which

will be definite, and therefore homogeneous and unvarying. There can

be no doubt that the cause of the uncertainty which prevails as to the

endurance of steel for dies arises from its unequal composition.

Gold possesses as many colours, and exists in as many conditions,

as any substance ordinarily met with. Those various changes are due

to the existence of impurities in the metal, which are neglected in

assaying, because the only business of the assayer is to determine

that the sovereign actually contains the lawful weight of pure gold,

and also so much alloy as is specified: what this alloy shall be is,

in the abstract, a small matter so that it is not silver, because

if it be silver it is worth the expense to separate it, and thereby

destroy the coinage. Yet, although the existence of such metals as

lead, bismuth, tin, antimony, and arsenic, as well as palladium and

osmium-iridium is not illegal, it becomes necessary to separate them,

because these metals affect the coin in various ways. Palladium and

platinum alloy with the gold only after considerable time, therefore

these metals may generally be seen in the finished coin, frequently as

a slight bar across its surface, sometimes as spots on its crenated

edge. Osmium-iridium causes trouble, inasmuch as it is so infusible,

that it simply floats about in the melted gold, and several crystals

agglomerate; where this takes place, the difficulty of manufacture is

so great, that it is impossible to produce the desired amount of coin

within the limits of remedy as to weight. The simplest means for the

removal of these substances is to allow the fused metal to remain for a

considerable time, when they settle to the bottom, and the clear metal

can be poured off; the dregs, if so they may be called, are then sent

to the refiner, but the process of separation is too long, and hardly

adapted for a description in this place.

As a practical matter, the other, or volatile metals, and lead, may be,

and generally are, removed by means of corrosive sublimate. This is an

expensive measure, and does not answer its intention, for some of the

mercury combines with the gold and renders it brittle. In practice, the

best process is that recommended by Mr. Warington, who proposed to add

to gold found to contain tin, antimony, or arsenic, 10 per cent. of

oxide of copper. The gold is fused in a Payen crucible, and the oxide

of copper is then added and stirred into the gold by a rod made of the

same substance as the crucible. This operation is easy of performance,

because the infusible oxide of copper stirs up with the gold readily,

and each particle of antimony, arsenic, or tin, as it comes into

contact with the oxide of copper, reduces it to the metallic state,

the volatile metals combining with the oxygen, while an equivalent of

copper alloys itself with the gold. The impurities, as they oxidise,

mix or combine with the oxide of copper. One or two experiments tell

how much copper is thus added to the gold; consequently, how much fine

gold is to be added to keep the alloy standard—and subsequent treatment

by the oxide of copper simply removes the volatile metals. Gold treated

by this process is perfectly workable on a large scale, and there is

no trouble. A condition of success is, that no reducing agent, such

as carbon, be present, and therefore plumbago pots cannot be used. In

practice, half an hour is the best time to keep the metal in contact

with the oxide of copper. The objection is frequently expressed, that

to refine gold is not the business of the coiners. This opinion,

however, will bear modification, for the expense of the oxide of copper

is trifling as compared with the cost of labour in treating brittle

gold.

I now advert to a most important matter in relation to coining, viz.,

that of the loss sustained, its cause, and prevention.

It appears that the Royal Mint should sustain less loss than any other

mint by the coining of gold and silver. If allowance be made for the

sale of the sweep or dust[46] which results from a coinage, the total

loss, inclusive of every operation in coining, should be so small that

it might be passed without notice; in fact, there ought to be a minute

increase of weight from traces of oil which are left on the fillets to

enable them to pass through the cylinders of the draw-bench;[47] by

melting[48] there seems to be too great a loss of metal: this should

reach about £100 per million coined, and such loss would be wholly

explained by the refining, which takes place through the removal of

copper by oxidation; although this is minute, still it is enough to

explain the loss which I indicate. If the assays be closely watched

there can be no loss, for the trial of the pyx invariably shows the

gold coin to err on the side of purity, so that if the Master of the

Mint should determine to issue gold of exact standard, and refuse to

avail himself of the latitude allowed, he may fairly cover every source

of loss, and coin money WITHOUT WASTE OF METAL. Each grain that is

found in excess of the standard upon the pound weight of gold causes

a loss of about £180 upon each million coined. The moneyers asserted

that they sustained a loss of £700 for each million coined, such loss

being exclusive of melting. This has never been believed to have been

a truthful statement, nor has the loss by coining alone often reached

so high an amount, although so large a sum as £373 per million would

seem to have been determined, by some careful experimenters, as the

necessary loss. Where the gold went to was not stated; but supposing

such a loss to accrue, it is manifest that either the gold volatilised

or the floors must be paved to many inches in thickness with gold,

but it is an established fact that matter once existent cannot be

annihilated; yet it has required many arguments to convince those most

interested in coining that the mere cutting up of bullion into small

pieces does not alter its actual weight: the present Mint Authorities

entertain the fallacious notion that large loss of gold is, for

metallurgical reasons, NECESSARY. Notwithstanding Mr. Graham’s opinion

that a loss of £206 on a million _was too high_,[49] they in their

“Reports on European Mints” have arrived at the conclusion “that the

‘waste’ shown to have existed of late years in the English Mint _has

not been excessive_.”

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

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

[Footnote 48: See pages 98-99.]

[Footnote 49: See page 178.]

To leave, then, the realms of speculation, and for a short time to

examine figures, a matter which is little understood will be reduced

to one of easy comprehension. Mr. W. T. Brande, in connection with

others, carried on a series of experiments between 1851 and 1856, the

results of which he gave me in writing, and which induced him to arrive

at the conclusion that by coining alone there was a loss varying from

1·20 grains on the pound, to 3·10 grains on the pound troy, or a mean

of 2·15 grains on each pound troy coined. This loss was thought to be

a necessary consequence of coining, and by a simple rule-of-three it

tells as follows:—

A loss of 1·20 grains on the lb. = £208·33 on each £1,000,000.

” 3·10 ” ” = £538·18 ” £1,000,000.

Mean loss 2·15 ” ” = £373·26 ” £1,000,000.

Mr. Brande and his colleagues, by his own admission, did not know the

value of the sweep recovered, therefore this loss was believed to be

absolute. We will next examine the accounts and see the fruit of that

belief, and then determine the effect of a contrary faith. And in the

following statements, given in a tabular form, I would observe that

the facts recorded were compiled by the Mint officials for the Master

at my suggestion, and that copies were given to me by the late Master,

who indeed invariably, when such statements were prepared, handed them

to me to copy and examine for my own information, and to see that they

were accurate.

It is a fact that the Mint books do not record the loss upon the gold

coined in November and December, 1851; or, if they do, these accounts

have been only quite recently balanced. In the following statement I

omit the coin of those two quarters, because the late Deputy Master

assured me that the accounts were not made up. This, I am aware, lays

me open to a correction; I therefore state that the coined money of

these two months is not included in my calculations.

STATEMENT SHOWING THE RATE OF COIN OBTAINED AND THE LOSS OF METAL

INCURRED IN EACH QUARTER FROM MARCH, 1852, TO DECEMBER, 1857.

(A) = Proportional Loss of Metal on each Million Ounces Coined.

+------------------+---------------+-----------------+---------+

+------------------+---------------+-----------------+---------+

|March 31st, 1852 | 300260·201 | | 446·94 |

|June 30th, ” | 501032·558 | | 399·17 |

|Sept. 30th, ” | 615753·337 | | 500·50 |

|Dec. 31st, ” | 828159·837 | 50·51 | 639·37 |

|March 31st, 1853 | 1113414·454 | 47·28 | 691·60 |

|June 30th, ” | 1223454·550 | 49·40 | 472·34 |

|Sept. 30th, ” | 248434·554 | 39·34 | 1130·64 |

|Dec. 31st, ” | 484331·447 | 42·81 | 784·42 |

|March 31st, 1854 | 769791·029 | 54·21 | 730·61 |

|June 30th, ” | 101611·604 | 49·65 | 787·21 |

|Dec. 31st, ” | 194968·684 | 47·76 | 583·07 |

|March 31st, 1855 | 515639·229 | 47·42 | 447·05 |

|June 30th, ” | 501708·378 | 47·01 | 456·20 |

|Sept. 30th, ” | 283944·316 | 43·53 | 420·18 |

|Dec. 31st, ” | 1012329·518 | 44·57 | 509·08 |

|March 31st, 1856 | 360409·244 | 38·39 | 489·05 |

|June 30th, ” | 818465·116 | 40·36 | 509·57 |

|Dec. 31st, ” | 362599·792 | 41·74 | 406·28 |

|March 31st, 1857 | 73638·878 | 39·64 | 233·84 |

|June 30th, ” | 19872·998 | 40·52 | 57·86 |

|Dec. 31st, ” | 1154606·290 | 54·69 | 18·45 |

+------------------+---------------+-----------------+---------+

There will be occasion to refer to the next table for further

information; but as the facts in this table are not strictly comparable

with any others that will be given, it is better to explain this as

it stands. Of the rate per centum of coin obtained from the bars

there will be occasion to speak at a later period. These figures are

placed here with a view to save repetition, which would be necessary

when that subject is discussed.[50] Although the figures in the first

column represent ounces, each item can at pleasure be converted into

pounds sterling by multiplying it by £3·89375, which is the decimal

expression for £3 17_s._ 10½_d._, the price per ounce of standard gold.

In such case it will only be necessary to multiply the weight of the

coinage by that value, and then to consider the loss of metal as pounds

sterling—thus, 300,260·201 ozs. + £3·89375 = £1,171,318 5_s._ 3¼_d._,

which sum lost weight by coining at the rate of £446 18_s._ 9½_d._

per million coined. If calculation be made by addition and division

of the figures in the third column, it will be observed that the

average loss per million between March, 1852, and December, 1856, is

£577·96,[51] and this was believed to be absolutely wasted in coining;

but this amount may be fairly reduced by the deduction of £72 10_s._,

the average value of sweep recovered, when it will remain £505·85. It

will also be seen that the rate per million missing—for that is the

fact—varied a good deal according to circumstances.

[Footnote 50: See pages 107, 117.]

[Footnote 51: See page 89.]

It has been asserted that these losses were mere matters of account,

and resulted from the removal of “fat or oil” in the various

operations. These explanations shall be admitted to their fullest

extent, but that they do not contain the cause for all the losses is

to be gathered from the fact that gold has been returned to the Mint

by the brickmaker, who found it in the ashes which he had bought. That

there were cases of actual theft I am myself aware; for I, by the

Master’s sanction, dismissed two men who were detected. Eleven others

shared the same fate, but no prosecution was attempted or permitted,

although strongly urged. As bearing on this point the following, in

relation to “peculation,” is told and believed in the Mint:—In 1856,

when the men had formed a strong opinion as to the honesty of one

particular person, they took their own means to watch him, and to see

how and when he abstracted the metal. A clear-headed man made it his

business to do this duty. The suspected man was assisting the officer

at the scales in the drag room, when the watcher saw him, after the

bullion was weighed, take a piece stealthily and secrete it in the

palm of his hand. The watcher, thinking to secure detection, requested

the officer at the scales to re-weigh that draft; but this gentleman

refused to comply. The watcher then told the officer what he had seen,

and that if he would open the man’s hand the piece of gold was still in

it, when the officer, addressing the suspected person, said, “Is it all

right, John?” John replied “Yes,” and no more passed. On his road home

“John” stumbled, and a piece of uncoined gold fell on the pavement.

That metal was actually removed from the premises is beyond doubt, for

a late officer picked up a piece of gold in the courtyard wrapped in

brown paper, and the police brought to the Master a “flat end”[52] of

gold, which had been offered for sale. The police inspected all the

men in the Mint employ; but the person who abstracted the gold did not

personally offer it for sale, and thereby escaped detection.

On the 2nd of December, 1853, the cutting room book records a loss of

87·26 ounces of gold, for which no satisfactory explanation is given.

This book also contains some significant remarks by the officer who had

charge of that department.

The Mint books adopt the word “Wasteage” as explanatory of these

losses, which were believed to be a necessary result of coining; so

generally, indeed, was this firmly-implanted belief entertained, that

at the bottom of each day’s account the word loss was printed, so that

the officer had only to write the amount which was missing.

If indeed proof that unnecessary wasteage[53] took place be required,

it will be but necessary to quote from the letter of the Master of the

Mint to the Treasury, dated 7th June, 1860. This letter was placed in

my hands on the 1st June, 1860, by the Master, who desired me to copy

such parts as related to loss and were of service to me, and that I

might confirm the accuracy of his figures. He said, “It appears by the

table that the average loss on the gold coinage of the first six years

is £784 0_s._ 0¾_d._, and on the gold of the last three years £172

8_s._ 11½_d._ per million coined, showing an improvement of £611 11_s._

1¼_d._ per million coined. On the twelve millions of gold coined during

the last three years the saving exceeds twelve thousand pounds.” The

three years here referred to were contained in the period during which

Mr. Graham entrusted me with the management of the coining department.

[Footnote 52: See page 27.]

[Footnote 53: See pages 99-106.]

That the actual amount of loss by coining may be got at, it will be

necessary to view the matter in a different form, and in that way to

show the amount of money recovered by the sale of sweep; that is, by

the sale of the ignited rubbish accumulated during a coinage, and

in the statement given on page 90 the money value of each item is

specifically represented. It need not be insisted that the utmost care

should be exercised in preserving the sweep, when it is stated that

this yields, at the end of a coinage, from 15 to 20 ounces of material

bullion called _scrap or supply_, when picked over before sale, for

only such as will pass through a fine sieve is sold; yet this sweep

used to stand about in open, unlocked boxes from month’s end to month’s

end.

It would be wrong to state that there is no _apparent_ loss by coining

gold. If, however, the whole circumstances be examined, it will be

found that, after deducting every legitimate waste, an appreciable gain

should be exhibited. In annealing sovereign blanks the loss is 54·12

ounces on each million. This then would appear to be an absolute waste;

but starting on the undisputed fact that “_matter cannot be lost_,” let

us see what becomes of these 54·12 ounces apparently lost. 54·12 ounces

contain 25,977·60 grains troy. Now, since careful analysis extending

over more than thirty millions of gold annealed has determined that

each million lost 5,708 grains of copper, and this copper is washed

away as sulphate of copper, it may be admitted that so much is lost,

thus leaving 20,169·60 grains unaccounted for. These 20,169·60 grains

are just 42·02 ounces, and if proper care were bestowed I could show

how every particle should be recovered at the end of the coinage.

That there should be a gain is demonstrable from the fact that the gold

as received into the coining department is quite clean; when wrought it

becomes coated with oil, and this being returned on the scissel[54] to

the melting-house is really charged as gold. In 1858 Mr. W. H. Barton,

experimenting independently, arrived at the conclusion that there were

200 ounces of oil on 765,370 ounces of gold scissel, while on the same

scissel I, by careful experiments, determined that there were 118·39

ounces of oil, the remainder being dust and other foreign matter.

Further experiments, conducted by Mr. Barton for his own satisfaction,

brought him to adopt my figures as accurate. This proportion would give

154·55 ounces to each million ounces of scissel; but since good work

returns only 35·80 per cent. of scissel on the rough bars, it becomes

manifest that this same proportion is but 101·22 ounces in each million

coined.

[Footnote 54: See pages 35, 87.]

Now the MONEYERS[55] used to make an allowance of 347 ounces to each

million ounces of scissel, and with such sharp business-like people

it is barely possible that they allowed too much. We may therefore

assume that the scissel of the present day is much less covered with

oil than it used to be; and this is indeed the truth, for whereas the

trucks were wont to be actually spotted with oil which dropped from

gold scissel, they are now unstained; and it may be mentioned that, to

test the minute amount on the scissel, the Master has upon occasions

wiped it with a white cambric handkerchief, by way of settling a

disputed point, without perceptibly soiling the handkerchief. Admitting

then a loss of 42·02 by annealing and blanching, we get, by deducting

this from the gain by oil, an absolute gain of 59·20 ounces on each

million ounces coined. In a little while, when examining the table, we

shall see how this theory worked out in practice; for, to be perfect,

it should be capable of demonstration. The question will naturally

arise, If the oil be now so small in proportion, why should there not

be an increased loss by melting? And here indeed arises a very nice

point, but one which is proved to demonstration—that whereas large

amounts of oil _cause_ loss, small quantities of oil PREVENT loss by

melting, and for the following reason. Standard gold consists of copper

2 parts, gold 22 parts. So soon as this gold approaches red heat it

changes to a purple colour on its surface, owing to the oxidation of

the copper. If, however, a trace of oil be present, the heat, while it

warms the gold, volatilises the oil, and thus places the gold in an

atmosphere free from oxygen, so that the standard gold remains metallic

until it liquefies; hence the saving of loss, for any oxide of copper

would be lost in the pot. This matter of the oil has been dwelt upon

because it is a vexed question, and when the melter, by want of care,

makes a large loss, he invariably, by a human weakness, attributes

the loss to the oil on the scissel. It was on such an occasion that

the assistant-melter produced the following amusing parody on the

three witches of Shakespeare. The illustrative picture is clever, but

unfitted for these pages.

[Footnote 55: The moneyers were those contractors who conducted the

coinages previously to the Mint being formed into a governmental

department in 1851.—_Vide_ Parliamentary Reports, 1837, 1849, 1852.]

_First Witch_. Round about the journeys go,

In the dirt and rubbish throw;

Extraneous matters, small and great,

Everything to make the weight.

_Second Witch_. Stone swept up and pounded small,

Pieces of the stuccoed wall,

A bit of saffron-coloured brick,

Odds and ends of broken stick;

Here’s the sweeping of the floor,

Weighing full an ounce or more.

_All_. Hubble bubble, toil and bubble,

Give the melter every trouble.

_Third Witch_. Copper by annealing got,

Send largely to the melting-pot;

A pennyweight of leather strap,

A piece of old brown paper cap,

Some cotton fluff, ten grains of coal,

Then OIL to saturate the whole.

_All_. Hubble bubble, toil and bubble,

Give the melter every trouble.

MACBETH (_as Justice_). How now, ye secret, black,

and cunning rollers!

What is’t ye do?

_All_. A deed without a name.

_24th November, 1862._ J. G.

Upon consulting the table—see p. 90—it will be found that, by deducting

the value of the sweep recovered, from the value of the metal lost,

between the periods November, 1851, and March, 1857, the actual loss

was £19,930 18_s._ 0_d_., which sum, divided by the amount of gold

coined in that period—viz., £40345185·450, gives £494 as a _bona fide_

loss on each million pounds coined, when the belief was to the effect

that there must be a loss. The great fact, _that matter once existent

cannot be lost_, was never applied to the operations of minting until,

in 1856, I demonstrated to the Master that the floors not being paved

to many inches thick with gold, the bullion which was stated to be

“wasted” in coining must have been _absolutely volatilised_, the

proposition exposing me to more than ridicule at the time, and to

positive hatred and misrepresentation thereafter; but when once the

determination was formed to arrest what I saw clearly was unnecessary

loss, it was carried out firmly, and in November, 1856, I commenced my

determinations of the _necessary_ amount of loss in each operation, as

well as a series of experiments to elucidate other points requiring

reform and explanation.

In furtherance of this firm resolve I assembled the men together, and

informed them that I had now taken charge of the departments over which

I had been placed, and that I should not permit any man to leave the

Mint until the account was satisfied, and I had received from them the

bullion to its uttermost part which I proposed to entrust to them.

That I might effect this determination I weighed out to them, in their

presence, a limited weight of gold, and then directed their foreman,

on their behalf, to satisfy himself that the weight I charged was fair

and honest; and then, with a firmness which surprised them, I followed

this gold step by step, never for an instant permitting it to leave

my sight, and at _each step in its passage from bullion to coined

money_ I carefully weighed it, and made the foreman again check me,

all the men being witnesses. At the end of the operations a FIXED GAIN

exhibited itself. I was called upon for an explanation, which I gave,

and each man was thus convinced that it was no use to attempt to cheat

me, and was compelled to acknowledge that unless by abstraction there

could be no loss. Many arguments followed for months, but LOSS became a

matter of history so long as I was present,—not so in my absence, even

at that time, as the books will show.

Great firmness was required, but I persevered, and received not only

thanks, but very valuable assistance from many of the men. With a

view to keep the Master supplied with information as I gained it, I

adopted a plan of reporting to him daily in writing the various changes

which took place in the bullion under my care as regards differences

of weighing, loss or gain, the amount per cent. of coin obtained, and

other such details, and at the end of each coinage I summarised the

whole of such facts into a tabular form, and thus rendered to him a

complete history of the operations conducted. This proved of immense

service, for upon the occurrence of an unusual event, attention was

at once drawn to it, and means adopted to discover the cause, while

at the same time a constant study of these reports could not fail to

induce for myself a more minute inquiry into the various branches of

my subject. I feel it cannot be unfitting to give, before proceeding

further, one of these statements or reports relating to gold, and when

I come to the discussion of silver I will, in its proper position,

place such another table, because these seem to convey much practical

information which will be useful to those engaged in coining.

The report placed on page 92 is a copy of one I made to the Master, so

I give it _in extenso_, and it will be found that by it bullion may be

traced from its first admission to the coining department to its final

issue as coined money, while each item of its history finds a place in

the immediate department in which the bullion may be under operation.

STATEMENT OF LOSSES INCURRED AND OF SWEEP RECOVERED. THIS REFERS WHOLLY

TO GOLD IN THE COINING DEPARTMENT.

+--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+--------

| | Weight of | | Weight

| Date—Financial Year. | Coinage. | Value of Coinage. | of

| | | | Lost

| | | | Metal.

+--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+--------

| | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._| Ounces.

| Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 351837·830| 1,369,968 11 0 | 134·206

|April 1852 to March 1853 |3058360·186|11,908,489 19 5½ |1851·888

| ” 1853 ” 1854 |2726011·580|10,614,408 11 9¾ |1804·559

| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 812219·517| 3,162,579 14 10½ | 424·092

| ” 1855 ” 1856 |2158391·456| 8,404,236 14 7½ |1039·798

| ” 1856 ” 1857 |1254703·786| 4,885,502 17 2 | 581·615

| ” 1857 ” 1858 |1256586·572| 4,892,833 19 4 | 17·784

| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 736150·582| 2,866,386 6 6¾ | 16·603

| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 980070·679| 3,816,150 4 2 | 74·857

| ” 1860 ” 1861 | 861205·000| 3,353,316 19 5 |

| ” 1861 ” 1862 |1872214·638| 7,289,935 14 11 | 263·568

| ” 1862 ” 1863 |2351444·336| 9,155,936 7 8 | 27·480

| ” 1863 ” 1864 |1807332·130| 7,037,299 9 8 | 47·054

| ” 1864 ” 1865 |1949438·200| 7,590,624 19 10 | 43·491

| ” 1865 ” 1866 |1256347·104| 4,891,901 10 9 | 57·612

| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 175838·208| 684,670 0 5 | 5·037

| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 109580·129| 426,677 12 1¾ | 3·357

|June 1868 to Sept. 1868 | 280993·740| 1,094,119 7 6 | ⁂19·87|

+--------------------------+-----------+-------------------+--------

+--------------------------+-----------------+--------------

| | Value of | Value of

| Date--Financial Year. | Lost Metal. | Sweep.

| | |

+--------------------------+-----------------+--------------

| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._

| Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 522 11 3 | 89 1 3

|April 1852 to March 1853 | 7,210 15 9¼ | 716 11 11½

| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 7,026 10 0¼ | 707 7 3½

| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 1,651 6 1¾ | 222 14 3

| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 4,148 14 3 | 635 4 1½

| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 2,264 13 3 | 422 13 10

| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 69 4 11 | 192 14 10

| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 64 12 11½ | 209 16 7

| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 291 9 6 | 254 4 9

| ” 1860 ” 1861 | |

| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 1,026 5 4 | 545 10 5½

| ” 1862 ” 1863 |+ 107 0 1 | 360 1 11

| ” 1863 ” 1864 |+ 183 4 4 | 459 0 1

| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 169 6 10 | 295 9 3½

| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 224 6 6 | 350 3 9

| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 19 12 3 | Nil.

| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 13 1 5 | Nil.

|June 1868 to Sept. 1868 | 77 7 7 | Nil.

+--------------------------+-----------------+--------------

+--------------------------+---------------+--------------

| | Value of Lost |Value of Sweep

| Date--Financial Year. | Metal per | per Million

| |Million Coined.| Coined.

| | |

+--------------------------+---------------+--------------+

| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._

| Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 381 8 10¼ | 65 0 2½

|April 1852 to March 1853 | 605 10 3¾ | 60 3 5¾

| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 661 19 6½ | 66 12 10

| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 522 2 1¾ | 70 8 5

| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 481 14 10¾ | 75 11 7½

| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 463 10 11¼ | 86 10 4¼

| ” 1857 ” 1858 |⁂ 14 3 0 | 39 7 10½

| ” 1858 ” 1859 |⁂ 22 11 0½ | 73 4 0½

| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 76 7 7 | 66 12 5

| ” 1860 ” 1861 | |

| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 96 8 6 | 51 5 1

| ” 1862 ” 1863 |+ 11 3 8 | 39 6 7

| ” 1863 ” 1864 |+ 26 0 8 | 65 4 5

| ” 1864 ” 1865 |⁂ 22 6 2 | 38 18 6

| ” 1865 ” 1866 |⁂ 45 17 1 | 71 11 8

| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 28 12 10 | Nil.

| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 30 12 8¼ | Nil.

|June 1868 to Sept. 1868 | 70 14 5¾ | Nil.

+--------------------------+---------------+--------------+

NOTES.—The sign + indicates that on those special coinages there was an

actual gain by weight to the extent specified, which will be explained

on page 98.

The ⁂ is intended to draw the attention of the reader to these figures

when a little later they are explained at pages 89, 93, 94, 95, 98.

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

the value of the gold lost.

RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 1870. THE

LORD ROSSIE. No. 1.