AVERAGE RATE FOR EACH MILLION COINED._The Royal Mint

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

| Date. | Ultimate _Loss_ by | Ultimate _Gain_ by |

|Financial Year.| Coining £1,000,000 | Coining £1,000,000 |

| | Gold. | Gold. |

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

| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ |

|1851-1852 | 315 8 7 | |

|1852-1853 | 545 6 10 | |

|1853-1854 | 595 6 9 | |

|1854-1855 | 451 13 9 | |

|1855-1856 | 418 1 3 | |

|1856-1857 | 377 0 6 | |

|1857-1858 | | 25 4 10 |

|1858-1859 | | 50 12 11 |

|1859-1860 | 9 15 2 | |

|1860-1862 | 45 3 5 | |

|1862-1863 | | 51 0 3 |

|1863-1864 | | 91 5 1 |

|1864-1865 | | 16 12 4 |

|1865-1866 | | 25 14 7 |

|1866-1867 | 28 12 10 | |

|1867-1868 | 26 6 7 | |

|1868-1869 | | 72 17 9 |

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

| Date. | Ultimate _Loss_ by | Ultimate _Loss_ by |

|Financial Year.| Melting Ingots, &c. | both Operations. |

| | for £1,000,000 Gold.| |

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

| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ |

|1851-1852 | 162 17 1 | 478 5 8 |

|1852-1853 | 376 3 9 | 921 10 7 |

|1853-1854 | 200 4 11 | 795 11 8 |

|1854-1855 | 209 8 7 | 661 2 4 |

|1855-1856 | 306 0 0 | 724 1 3 |

|1856-1857 | 314 13 7 | 691 14 1 |

|1857-1858 | 165 9 5 | 140 4 7 |

|1858-1859 | 257 7 1 | 206 14 2 |

|1859-1860 | 201 4 8 | 210 19 10 |

|1860-1862 | 228 18 4 | 274 1 9 |

|1862-1863 | 206 3 9 | 155 3 6 |

|1863-1864 | 276 7 1 | 185 2 0 |

|1864-1865 | 170 18 9 | 164 6 5 |

|1865-1866 | 356 14 4 | 330 19 9 |

|1866-1867 | 212 18 6 | 241 11 4 |

|1867-1868 | 283 1 9 | 309 8 4 |

|1868-1869 | 392 6 10 | 319 9 1 |

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

RETURN FROM THE ROYAL MINT TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, DATED

17TH FEBRUARY, 1870. THE LORD ROSSIE.

A Statement showing the individual sums paid by cheque by the Master of

the Mint to the Bank of England in consideration of any loss or waste

by coining gold, by melting gold, and by assaying gold on each occasion

of a balance of accounts by those institutions between 1851 and 1869

inclusive, specifying the proportional payments in relation to each

million coined during the several periods.

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

Date of Payment.| Period during which | Amount of | Rate of

| Waste occurred. | Cheque. | Waste per

| | | Million.

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

| | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._

1852, March 31st |From 11th July 1851 to | 890 1 5 | 649 0 0

| 31st March 1852 | |

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

” August 26th|From 1st April to 30th | 1,926 10 5 | 951 0 0

| June 1852 | |

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

” December 6th|From 1st July to 30th | 2,051 16 9 | 882 0 0

| September 1852 | |

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

1853, June 17th |From 1st October to | 3,209 8 2 | 995 0 0

| 31st December 1852 | |

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

” July 8th |From 1st January to | 5,270 1 3 |1,132 0 0

| 31st March 1853 | |

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

” September |From 1st April to 30th | 4,564 0 0 |1,026 0 0

30th | June 1853 | |

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

” December |From 1st July to 30th | 1,147 5 2 |1,112 0 0

30th | September 1853 | |

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

1854, August |From 1st October 1853 | 4,583 0 0 | 878 0 0

30th | to 30th June 1854 | |

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

1856, May 2nd |From 1st July 1854 to | 8,685 14 3 | 895 0 0

| 31st December 1855 | |

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

1857, June 12th |From 1st January 1856 | 5,265 6 0 | 803 0 0

| to 30th May 1857 | |

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

1858, May 5th |From 1st June 1857 to | 1,110 14 7 | 230 0 0

| 31st March 1858 | |

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

1860, March 12th |From 1st April 1858 to | 1,282 16 7 | 360 0 0

| 30th June 1859 | |

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

” June 27th |From 1st July 1859 to | 1,084 6 3 | 347 0 0

| 31st March 1860 | |

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

1862, August 29th|From 1st April 1860 to | 4,272 11 7 | 389 0 0

| 31st August 1862 | |

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

1863, March 30th |From 1st September 1862| 1,766 14 8 | 350 0 0

| to 31st December 1862 | |

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

” June 3rd |From 1st January to | 606 19 4 | 161 0 0

| 31st March 1863 | |

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

1864, September |From 1st April 1863 to | 2,584 11 11 | 281 0 0

6th | 31st July 1864 | |

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

1865, March 29th |From 1st August 1864 to| 1,320 16 9 | 419 0 0

| 31st December 1864 | |

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

” October |From 1st January to | 438 6 3 | 169 0 0

19th | 30th September 1865 | |

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

1866, July 4th |From 1st October 1865 | 2,633 13 2 | 485 0 0

| to 30th June 1866 | |

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

1867, December |From 1st July 1866 to | 227 5 10 | 457 0 0

12th | 30th November 1867 | |

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

1869, November |From 1st December 1867 | 4,162 1 0 | 461 0 0

30th[69] | to 30th November 1869 | |

| +--------------+

| £ 59,084 1 4 |

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

C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY-MASTER AND COMPTROLLER.

ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

[Footnote 69: A coinage having been in progress on the 31st of March,

1869, no waste account was made up at the close of the financial year

1868-69.]

In this table (page 101) care has been taken to remove every item

which can mislead, and therefore the ultimate or absolute loss to the

Mint is alone put forward; and while the subsequent table (page 102)

shows the money and its rate per million actually paid to the Bank for

loss; this shows the internal accounts of the operative departments in

the Mint only, so that every item which can reduce the loss has been

admitted, and it is therefore necessary to point out that each sum

exhibited in the last column as the ultimate loss by both operations,

is the rate for each million coined, all being under precisely similar

circumstances in every respect. I have excluded loss by assay.

If this table (page 101) be examined, it will be seen that between 1851

and 1857 there was an invariable statement of loss by coining; then

between 1857 and 1859 a period of gain; to be followed in the next two

periods, 1859 to 1862, by loss, which was again overcome; and for the

next four years a varying gain, alternated by two years of loss, and

followed finally by another statement of gain.

Enquiry may fairly be made why, if up to 1857 loss had been permitted,

gain could subsequently be established. The reply is, that the

management of the coining department was placed under myself by Mr.

Graham, and I acted firmly on my belief that “matter cannot be lost;”

hence, if the accounts were short, I made the men hunt the floors—not

the chimneys—carefully until the gold was found.

The Master of the Mint then discouraged my efforts, and the result

was rapidly increasing loss, until I placed on the Master[70] the

responsibility of such loss, when there returned four years of gain,

thus once more proving that under proper management loss would not

occur; but from this period I was removed from responsible management,

and the result was a return to the habitual loss. This would appear to

have been overcome in the year 1868-1869, for in that year a gain to

the extent of £72 17_s._ 9_d._ (see Return, page 91) is exhibited. It

will be necessary to examine this gain to see how far it is real, and

the proof is at hand that it is obtained under false pretences.

For special reasons which are not exhibited,[71] the figures relating

to 1851-1852 on the table at page 96 are fictitious; the fact being

that losses which should have been stated are excluded. If, however,

the table from 1852 to 1869 be examined it will be observed that the

ultimate loss by melting varies considerably, but that in the year

1857-1858 it fell to £165 9_s._ 5_d._, while in that year a gain was

made by coining to the extent of £25 4_s._ 10_d._[72] This gain being

deducted from the loss by melting, leaves a final loss of £140 4_s._

7_d._, as will be seen in the last column at page 101. To test then

the gain shown in 1868-69 by the same rule, it will be observed that

while the coining department (see page 101) made a profit of £72

17_s._ 9_d._,[73] the loss by melting was £392 6_s._ 10_d._, or higher

in amount than it has been in _any previous year_, so that the gain

claimed for coining is _false_—it has not arisen—it is a STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTS, obtained by sending inaccurate weights of bullion to the

melter, and thus shifting to that department the loss which fairly

belonged to the coiner. The same remark applies to the year 1865-1866,

when it will be seen that the system of loss fairly reset in.

[Footnote 70: See page 94.]

[Footnote 71: See page 83.]

[Footnote 72: See page 90.]

[Footnote 73: See also page 91.]

BONA FIDE GAIN BY COINING GOLD IN ITS FINAL OUT-TURN is only to be

obtained by the possession of a firm belief in the impossibility

of legitimate loss, and by entrusting the operations of coining to

such men as appreciate the fact that it is atoms which build up the

universe. I proved, and maintained my assertion for years, that there

should be no loss, but on the other hand gain, by coining gold, and

this I did with a reduction in the loss by melting to a lower point

than has ever before or since been known, and with a total loss from

both causes of only £140 4_s._ 7_d._ (see pages 101-102); and, had

occasion served, it was always intended that I should direct the

melting of gold as I had done that of silver,[74] for as I had clearly

shown that coining could be fairly conducted without loss, the Master

was to have given me an opportunity to show the same facts in melting.

Of this loss of £140 4_s._ 7_d._ in the final out-turn of gold, it

should be explained that at that date the system of weighing to and

from the bank was such that there was on that coinage a difference of

weighing _against the Mint_ of £75 on each million, so that had just

weighments been made, my loss from all causes being reduced by that

amount would have been £65 4_s._ 7_d._ on each million coined.

With such facts established and stated in the return to the House of

Lords, it is at least singular that Lord Lansdowne should support his

assertion that 1_s._ on £100 is a moderate and fair loss, by stating

that this is also the opinion of eminent refiners in London. In my

experience refiners do not know what their losses are, for their

customers bear them. By special agreement with Sir A. Rothschild, the

Mint pays 4_d._ per ounce on the total sent for refining, and receives

back all the gold and silver; but the general public, by previous

agreement, submit to a deduction of weight, and thus pay the expenses

of refining. Mr. Graham, in his paper published after his brother’s

failure to conduct the gold coinage as I had done, fixed the loss at

£300 on a million. Lord Lansdowne now fixes it at 1_s._ on £100; that

is, at the rate of £500 on a million; and this sum is being rapidly

approached, for Lord Kinnaird’s return shows that for the past three

years it has averaged £464.[75] And since such a loss is to be borne

and pleasantly spoken of by _Mr. Lowe_, the Master of the Mint, as

“going up the chimney,” it is well to see if that can take place.

[Footnote 74: See page 136.]

[Footnote 75: See page 102.]

The volatilization of gold and silver requires an extremely high

temperature. This temperature is never reached in melting the precious

metals for coinage; therefore vapour of gold or of silver cannot by

any possibility be conveyed into the chimney; consequently, cannot

be found there. That this statement is true, has been demonstrated

satisfactorily in Brussels, where the chimneys were discreetly

searched to find the silver which the contractors were informed would

be found: the chief contractor assured me that they failed to find

the most minute trace of either silver or gold. Yet Mr. Roberts,

at page 23, “European Mints,” says, “The precious metals actually

volatilized may be arrested by condensation. This point has received

much attention in the Roman Mint, where the flues of the gold melting

furnaces have been placed in communication with condensing chambers

of simple construction, the adoption of which has been attended with

very satisfactory results.” On page 17 he has already said “I strongly

recommend that a condensing chamber be attached to the flues of the

gold melting furnaces. Such chambers have not hitherto been used in

the Mint in this country, but their advantage has been proved in the

Roman Mint, where they have been the means of effecting a considerable

saving.”

It is with regret that one sees men entrusted with the control of so

great a work as our coinage, making propositions on the authority of

the Roman Mint, whose gold coinage is perhaps the smallest in Europe.

If, however, Mr. Roberts should conduct on a large scale the plan _he

has devised_ for removing the obnoxious properties from brittle gold,

these chambers may become useful. In the meantime the present Mint

chimneys have the accumulations of more than sixty years, and it would

be quite worth while to pull them down and obtain the £59,000[76] which

the Mint admits to have lost (see page 101). Are the chimneys lined

with finely-divided gold, or does that metal accumulate in ingots?

if the latter be the case, their draught must be slightly impeded,

for fifty-nine thousand pounds worth of gold would more than fill an

imperial bushel; in the popular view a “thousand sovereigns fill a

quart measure.” If Mr. Roberts should fail to find any trace of gold,

he can re-consider his proposition; should he, however, find the sum

which has been supposed to be lost, that treasure will pay the cost of

new chimneys.

[Footnote 76: See page 102.]

If, instead of Lord Lansdowne appealing to Lord Kinnaird’s generosity

to leave unsaid things which should be said, his Lordship would

refute the facts and figures which Lord Kinnaird places before their

Lordships’ House, it seems probable that the question would be

settled; but while Lord Lansdowne simply pleads that “the person who

supplies information to Lord Kinnaird is only a dismissed clerk,”

it becomes manifest that the facts placed before Lord Kinnaird are

awkward to contradict, and still more awkward to explain, except by

the painful delusion Lord Lansdowne adopts—that “his lordship confuses

the accounts.” It may fairly be admitted that the accounts furnished

by the Mint Authorities to the House of Commons are stated in such a

manner that bankers and merchants find it impossible to comprehend

them, and to arrive at their meaning, more than one banker in London

_has applied to me_ to unravel those statements which have been

characterised as “such that if our younger clerk were to present them

he would be dismissed our service.” Still, that Lord Kinnaird has not

fallen into this error has, it is hoped, been now made fully manifest.

Lord Lansdowne, in continuation, stated that “the author of this book

appears to have left unnoticed the losing operations in the Mint, and

Lord Kinnaird seems to have fallen into the trap.” Had Lord Lansdowne

looked into the book he thus criticized, he would have found that

each process of gain and loss is treated at considerable length, but

none with more detail than the processes of the melting both for gold

and silver, as he will learn if he will refer to the book, now out of

print, but a copy of which is in the Mint Library—for gold melting,

at pages 69, 74, 81, 82, 83; and for silver melting, at pages 101,

104, 109, 111, where it will be clearly seen that these losses are

dwelt upon and shown to be inexcusable. The returns upon which I have

thus commented are also of importance as introducing a new system in

accounts—that of altering such accounts without reason assigned or

explanation given. If the return on page 91 be examined for the year

April 1867 to March 1868, it will be seen that a variation exists

between it and my table on page 90; for whereas I state the value

of the coinage for that year at £426,677 12_s._ 1¾_d._ and the loss

at 3·357 ounces, or at the rate of £30 12_s._ 8¼_d._ on the million

coined, the return states the money coined at £496,397 17_s._ 11_d._;

and leaving unaltered the _amount of loss_, shows it to be at the rate

of £26 6_s._ 7_d._ per million coined, a similar alteration has been

made in the account of the melting department. Seeing that my figures

were those supplied by the then Deputy Master to the late Master of

the Mint, I cannot comprehend why those accounts should be issued by

Mr. Fremantle, who has entered the Mint since that gentleman’s death,

with a variation in the figures, but I shall presently show that such a

proceeding is not confined to this one transaction.

While the subject of accounts is under notice, I think it right to

observe upon a passage in Mr. Fremantle’s “Report on European Mints,”

at page 7, in which that gentleman says—

“I propose, also, that the ‘sweep,’ under which term are

comprised dust collected from the floors, carbonaceous

deposits from flues, ground-up crucibles, &c., should be

treated in the Mint, instead of being sold, as at present,

to the highest bidder. It will be important to determine

what metallurgical process should be adopted with a view

of carrying this intention into effect; but the step

cannot fail to be advantageous to the Mint, not only as

tending to economy, but also more especially as enabling

the _department to substitute a real for a fictitious

statement of ‘waste,’ the regulations of the public

service_ NOT ALLOWING THE PROCEEDS OF THE ‘SWEEP’,

_when sold to the public, to be brought to account_

AS A SET-OFF AGAINST THE GROSS AMOUNT OF LOSS.”

that while I quite appreciate his thus carrying out the suggestion I

never ceased to urge, I do object to his stating that which is hardly

true as indicated by the passages I have marked. Such a statement must

have been a slip of the pen, as it is but necessary to refer to the

returns made to the House of Lords[77] to exhibit the fact that these

accounts are now kept and actually published to Parliament, and in my

own knowledge, those returns are accurate—not false—for I saw much of

the money paid for the sweep, which I delivered to the purchasers on

the authority of Mr. Barton. There is no sense in which these returns

can be said to be false unless in the one year I have pointed out. If

they be false, is it not a serious matter for any one to sign his name

and submit them as accurate to Parliament?

Let us, then, turn to the accounts, and see how far the other expenses

are unnecessarily inflated—and why? In such a consideration it will be

necessary to revert, as in the case of losses, to the earlier periods

of the Government occupation of the Mint; and, without going too far

into details, it may be stated that the average amount of _rejected

work_ (see page 44) reached, in some instances, 70 per cent.; but if

the averages for sovereigns be taken as extending over long periods, a

good general knowledge may be gained, thus:—

In 1855, between June 6th and August 13th, the highest was 40·51 per

cent., the lowest 13·13 per cent., the mean of 41 days giving 21·49 per

cent.; while, at that period, the coined money was 43·53 per cent. on

the clean bars.

In 1856, from January 2nd to January 22nd inclusive (18 working days),

the highest was 21·48 per cent., the lowest 12·72 per cent., the mean

of 18 days giving 18·51 per cent.; while, at that period, the coined

money was 38·39 per cent. on the clean bars.

In 1856, during a short coinage I reduced its average amount to 13·78

per cent., the coined money increasing to 41·74 per cent. on the clean

bars; but, as shown at page 92, this improved in 1857 to 6·99 per

cent., while the coined money rose to 57·26 per cent. on the clean bars.

In 1860, from January 4th to February 18th inclusive (41 days), the

highest was 7·71 per cent., the lowest 2·33 per cent.; the mean of 41

days was 4·11 per cent., which by the file was reduced to 2·07 per

cent.;[78] while, at that period, the coined money was 57·43[79] per

cent. on the clean bars.

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

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

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

Before arriving at definite conclusions as regards the amount of

rejected work, it will be necessary to understand that up to the 2nd

of August, 1861, the remedy[80] allowed in practice was 0·30 grain,

and that in proportion as the remedy is reduced, the amount of rejected

is increased; it is also the case that when work is good all the

blanks or coins approach the standard weight, but when it is bad they

as invariably go to the side or margin of the remedy. The following

table exhibits the amount per cent. of rejected work[81] which took

place, with the various remedies; and these facts once determined, are

to be remembered, because the rejected will in all cases bear these

proportions to each other. In this table sovereigns are alluded to.

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

[Footnote 81: See page 44.]

REMEDY IN PARTS OF A GRAIN.

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

| | 0·30 | 0·25 | 0·24 | 0·23 | 0·22 | 0·21 | 0·20 |

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

|Average in 1860 |4·00 | 8·00 | ... | ... | ... | ... |12·00 |

| ” 1861 |... |10·00 |13·00 |15·00 |15·00 |18·00 |19·00 |

| ” ” |5·10 |10·50 | ... | ... | ... | ... |19·66 |

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

These considerations had no weight when the Coinage Bill was being

hurriedly passed—at late hours, so as to avoid discussion on its

clauses—by the House of Commons. It in due course reached the House

of Lords, where Lord Kinnaird moved a clause—which would have been

greatly to the benefit of the Mint had it been adopted—to the effect

that the remedy on the individual piece should be 0·2568 grain; that

is—the remedy from the old scale under the Mint Indenture proportioned

to one coin. This Coinage Bill introduced a new principle, and it would

have been wise had it given the Mint every chance of success. Instead,

however, of proceeding cautiously, his lordship’s motion was rejected

and the remedy declared fixed at 0·2000 grain, thus necessitating the

use of a working remedy of 0·1700 grain, or perhaps 0·1500 grain, and

the consequent rejection for re-melting of “_only_ 15½ per cent. of

the whole of the money coined.” My experience tells me, more probably

of about 35 per cent.; but upon this head I will allow Mr. Napier to

speak. He says, “Indeed, roundly taken, the returns to the crucible

may be put at nearly 50 per cent.; so that to produce a given weight

of finished coin, something like double the weight of metal must be

melted. So long as this state of things lasts, the process up to the

formation of the blank must be regarded as imperfect.” It is not the

_process that fails_, it is the want of power _to conduct that process_

which causes so candidly admitted a continuation of the fatal system

re-introduced by Mr. John Graham.

The proportioned legal remedy was 0·2568 grain. Now we can only wish

to be within the law. If, therefore, 0·25 grain had been adopted as

a _working remedy_, the automaton balances are so accurate that no

piece could ever be found beyond the remedy, on either side, and an

immense expense would be saved in labour alone, for the rejected

goes to the melting-pot; yet, owing to a mistake on the part of the

Bank of England, 0·20 grain was used in 1861, but under my urgent

representation this was relaxed because of the extravagant expense, and

for some years 0·24 grain was used, in accordance with the following

order from the Master:—“Mr. Ansell is requested to increase the remedy

on sovereigns from 0·20 grain to 0·24 grain, and the half-sovereigns in

a similar proportion.—14th of August, 1861. (Signed) THOMAS GRAHAM.”

Under other management, since the early part of 1868, the working

remedy has been reduced to 0·15 grain. Such useless waste, it is to be

hoped, has only to be pointed out that this clause of the New Coinage

Act may be repealed.

Following these considerations, the next table will show the rate

per cent. of rejected sovereigns and half-sovereigns, as well as the

remedies practically employed in regular work. They are, in all cases,

the average results of whole coinages of each specific year mentioned.

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

| | | | on | were melted).|

| | | +-----------+-----------+ |

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

| 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 |

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

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

| | | | |

| | struck, so | | on |

| | | | |

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

| 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.

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

| | | | |

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

|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 |

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

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

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

|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 |

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

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

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

|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 |

|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 |

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

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.

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

| | | | |

| | | | |

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

|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|

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

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

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

|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. |

| +-------+-----------+-----------+

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

|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. |

| +-------+-----------+-----------+------+

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

|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

(D) = Coined Money:—Half Sovereigns.

(E) = Coined Money:—Mixed Pyx Pieces.

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

| conducted between | (A) | (B) | (C) |

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

| 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|

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

| conducted between | (D) | (C) | (E) |

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

| 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|

| 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 | |

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

[Footnote 87: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 88: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 89: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 90: Explained on page 115.]

To show the extra cost of coining, these figures have but to be

multiplied into the sums coined. Before, however, entering upon this

field, it will be well to explain that the rates per cent. of coined

money obtained, as exhibited in the last two tables, are inclusive of

the pyx pieces, so as to show, as far as possible, the best results.

The pieces taken for the Mint trial are excluded, because these do not

ultimately find their way into circulation; but that the vast money

loss may be seen, I have added, in a tabular form, a statement[91]

which will show the weight of coined money produced in each coinage

from 1856 to 1868. It may, at first sight, appear that if the work

be so badly conducted as to yield an average of 3·92 per cent. less

coined money from a hundred ounces of bars, the expense incurred is

increased to an equivalent amount; but such is not the case, for

all depends on the point at which the extravagant workmanship may

have taken place. If, for instance, the bad work be produced in the

rolling room, it simply induces the expenditure of so much wages in

the melting, because the men are paid for the bars produced; but if

the rejection shall have taken place after the money is coined, it

becomes a more serious matter, because, in such a case, the loss and

expense attendant on each operation subsequent to the melting have been

incurred. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to give a general rule,

but an instance will suffice. The coinage for 1857,[92] inclusive of

every _manufacturing_ expense, cost 6_s._ 5_d._ per thousand pieces;

while that of 1866 cost 13_s._ 2_d._ per thousand pieces. That the

exact amount of waste may be estimated for these two years, then, it is

only necessary to multiply the weight given previously (refer to page

114) for the coined money and pyx pieces, which, in the period from

November, 1856, to April, 1857, would be 456,111·568, added to 464·293,

and the sum of these, multiplied by £3·89375,—the decimal expression

for £3 17_s._ 10½_d._, when the total value of that coinage will be

obtained, and found to be £1,777,796·15. Since each thousand coins

cost 6_s._ 5_d._, the total sum was coined at an expense of £570 7_s._

6_d._; but, had the rate of expense been the same as for the coinage of

1866, the total cost would have been £1,170 7_s._ 7½_d._, or exactly

£600 0_s._ 1½_d._ more than it should have cost for actual working

expenses. So by the rule of proportion the actual expense for the

coinage of 1866 may be obtained, and this table is valuable as showing

the weight of each coinage, but will naturally be more serviceable to

those who seek practical information than to general readers, and for

the benefit of such it is added.

[Footnote 91: See page 114.]

[Footnote 92: See page 117.]

On examining this table (see page 114), it will be observed that

the coinages of December, 1858, to June, 1859, and against which is

placed, are bracketed, with a view to call attention to the fact that

the accounts of those two coinages became inexplicably mixed. Since

the present and the late Prime Minister have stated from their places

in Parliament that the Royal Mint is found wanting in administrative

ability, it may not be out of place to suggest that there is abundant

room for reform in the Office division of that Department, for it is

seldom that the accounts can be obtained for many months after the

work is finished, and this circumstance, as is apparent, is a serious

inconvenience to the operative department.

Following these considerations on the extravagance of manufacture, and

reflecting on what the processes should be, it appears that this is

a fitting point at which to study the cost of producing gold coins,

and, consequently, the rates of wages paid to the men for labour.

Therefore, it may be well to state that there were two systems of

payments to workpeople: one by which they were paid for _time_, that

is, by the hour, for cleaning the working departments, machinery, &c.,

and for the more important coining of bronze; while for the coining of

the precious metals they were paid by a scale of _piece-work_. These

systems produced nothing but dissatisfaction amongst the workpeople,

for at times they were receiving very good wages, and at others none

at all; and to meet such contingencies the men and boys who were on

the establishment received a kind of retaining fee, which was called

subsistence, and in bitter irony no more fit name can be given to

the miserable pittance which, under this form, was paid to them. It

commenced at 6_s._ a week, and, after twenty years, rose to 10_s._

a week; and if, as often happened, the Mint were idle for months

together, this was all the poor fellows had to subsist upon; and, to

reduce the value of this pittance to its smallest proportion, they were

not entitled to it unless they should each day present themselves,

and, by a fiction, ask for leave of absence for that day, the longest

period for which leave can be granted. After many attempts to compel

the men to comply with these terms, they were wisely permitted to

go home, and “wait further orders;” so that, by a kind of tacit

resistance, they were able to overcome a regulation which would make

it impossible to obtain employment elsewhere, because most other work

commences before eight, at which hour they were required to present

themselves. If, instead of this unsatisfactory state, the men were paid

fixed wages, and, in addition, so much for each 100 lbs. of coined

money produced, they would be satisfied, while the coined money would

be produced at a cheaper rate, for each man would be concerned to see

that every exertion was made for the final event; whereas, under the

then arrangement, with a specific amount of gold to be coined, it is

manifest that, with management such as is now under discussion, the sum

for wages might be doubled, because the men were paid at the following

Rates for Piece-work.

LEGEND:

(A) = Rolling Fillets.

(B) = Adjusting and Cutting.

(D) = Coining in Press Room.

(E) = Melting. (Ends are not deducted.)

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

| Troy of Good | (A) | (B) | (C) | (D) | (E) |

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

| |_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 |

| Shillings | 2 0 | 3 6 | 3 6 | 3 0 | 5 |

|Silver Sixpences | 4 0 | 7 0 | 7 0 | 6 0 | 5 |

| Fourpences | 5 0 | 8 0 |14 0 |12 0 | 5 |

| Threepences | 6 0 |10 0 |14 0 |12 0 | 5 |

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

And, to view this matter in its practical light, we can demonstrate its

unadvisedness. Thus, in the coinage of 1857,[93] there were 2,110,962

ounces of gold bars wrought, which produced 2,016,337·80 ounces of

fillets (equal to 95·51 per cent.). These fillets produced 1,163,502·34

ounces of good blanks, from which 1,154,590·87 ounces of coined

sovereigns were obtained. Now, if these various weights be reduced to

wages—the men were paid for the produce of each operation—by the table

above given, they will yield as follows:—

[Footnote 93: See page 92.]

£ _s. d._

For melting 36 12 9½

” rolling 252 8 0½

” cutting and adjusting 260 12 5¾

” annealing and blanching 145 8 9

” coining in press room 120 5 4¾

--------------

£815 7 5½

So that for producing 1,154,590·87 ounces, or £4,495,748, of coined

money, the men were paid £815 7_s._ 5½_d._, which sum was equally

divided amongst the whole body, except that paid to the melters, for

they are still paid, by a curious fiction, as packers and tellers.

This, then, is the sum paid for wages when the coin produced averaged

54·79 per cent. on the bars; but let us see its amount compared with

another statement put forward by the late Master of the Mint when the

sovereigns produced averaged—the coinages concerned terminated in

December, 1864,[94] and May, 1866[95]—49·44 and 38·11[96] per cent. on

the bars respectively—in other words, let us compare this rate of pay

with that given in the Report of the Commissioners on the International

Coinage, from which book the figures for 1864 in the following Table

are taken.

[Footnote 94: See page 111.]

[Footnote 95: See page 111.]

[Footnote 96: By reference to the table at page 84, it will be seen

that the amount of coin obtained in 1866 was below the worst produced

at any other period since 1851.]

STATEMENT SHOWING THE COST OF PRODUCING

1,000 COINED SOVEREIGNS AND HALF SOVEREIGNS.

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

| | | | | |

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

| | | | | £ _s. d._ |

| 1857 |Sovereigns | 4,495,748 | 497,625 | 778 14 8 |

| 1858 | ” | 47,549 | | 8 4 2½ |

| 1858 |Half Sovereigns| 544,312 | 272,156 | 91 10 3 |

| 1864 |Sovereigns | 5,663,656 | 514,878 |2,011 11 7½ |

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

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

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

| |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |

| 1857 | 0 3 5½ | 0 8 1¼ | 0 2 9½ | 0 14 4¼ |

| 1858 | 0 3 5¼ | 0 17 5½ | 0 4 1¼ | 1 5 2 |

| 1858 | 0 3 4½ | 0 18 3¾ | 0 4 1¼ | 1 5 9½ |

| 1864 | 0 7 2 | 0 12 9¼ | 0 6 0 | 1 5 11¼ |

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

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

| | | |

| | | Total Cost |

| Date |Cost of 1000|of producing |

| of | pieces for | one Gold |

|Coining| melting. | Coin. |

| | | |

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

| |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |

| 1857 | 0 0 1·955 | 0 0 0·174 |

| 1858 | | 0 0 0·302 |

| 1858 | | 0 0 0·309 |

| 1864 | | 0 0 0·311 |

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

By which it is demonstrably shown that whereas at that period 1,000

coins cost for wages 7_s._ 2_d._, at the periods above given, and shown

as 1857-8, the cost was 3_s._ 5½_d._ for the same number of coins, thus

showing a clear saving for wages, by the proper system of management,

of 3_s._ 8½_d._ on each 1,000 sovereigns coined, or on that total

quantity no less than £1,050 2_s._ 8½_d._ While such extravagance is

not only tolerated but approved, miserable savings are effected at the

cost of the helpless. But to treat of the wrongs to which men in this

Department are submitted would take volumes which none would read.

Since, however, the appearance of the last edition of this book, the

Mint Authorities have adopted in part the plan of wages payment I

therein suggested, and which I had submitted to the late Master of

the Mint in my Report dated 29th January, 1859. Indeed, I believe the

system now in force was recommended to the Treasury, in the first

instance, by Mr. Thomas Graham. I am sorry they did not give full

effect to my propositions, still they have improved the positions of

the workmen by the alterations made, but for the reasons I shall state

I cannot concur in what they have done. I leave my original proposition

to speak for itself, as I reproduce it a few pages hence, and here

content myself with exhibiting the system of payment to workmen now in

force in the Royal Mint. _Vide_ “Mint Reports,” No. 7, 1870.

“We propose that for the future all piece-work in gold and silver

coining shall be paid for at the reduced rate of 1_s._ 9_d._ per 1,000

good pieces, and all bronze coining at the rate of £2 10_s._ per

ton for pence, £3 10_s._ per ton for halfpence, and £7 per ton for

farthings.

“In addition to their wages for piece-work, we propose that the men

should be entitled to a uniform payment of £1, and the boys to a

payment of 10_s._, and after three years’ service, to 15_s._ per week.

The only exception to these arrangements would be the payments made

to certain overmen, which would be in one case £1 10_s._, and in five

other cases £1 5_s._ per week. These payments would continue to be made

when the Mint is at work as well as when it is unemployed, and to the

boys as well as to the men. All the men and boys would thus receive

sufficient weekly wages to maintain them, both during a cessation of

work and while the Mint is in full operation.

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

effected.”

To the principle involved in this system I take exception; for the

manufacturers, who gave the idea for it, never coined the precious

metals, so that the whole operation of the system could not have been

present to their minds when they recommended it. By this plan the men

are paid for simple numbers, and not as they should be, in proportion

to the labour and anxiety incurred.

That this fault may stand out clearly, I submit in the following table

a fair week’s work on each coin, and we will assume that the one kind

of coin follows the other, as indeed would really be the case in actual

operation, only at greater intervals.

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

| GOLD. |

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

| Sovereigns. | Half |

| | Sovereigns. |

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

| 600 journeys | 300 journeys |

| per week. | per week, |

| = 420,600 | = 420,600 |

| pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 |

| per 1,000. | per 1,000, |

| | |

| Wages £36·80 | £36·80 |

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

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

| SILVER. |

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

| | | | |

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

| = 475,200 | =712,800 | = 855,360 | = 950,400 |

| per 1,000, | per 1,000, | per 1,000. | per 1,000. |

| | | | |

| £41·55 | £62·37 | £74·84 | £33·16 |

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

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

| BRONZE. |

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

| Pennies. | Half pennies. | Farthings. |

| | | |

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

| 30 cwt. per | 25 cwt. per | 12 cwt. per |

| diem, or say | diem, or say | diem, or say |

| 9 tons a week | 7·50 tons a week,| 3·60 tons a |

| at £2 10_s._ | at £3 10_s._ | week, at £7 |

| per ton. | per ton. | per ton. |

| | | |

| £22·50 | £26·25 | £25·20 |

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

It is reasonable to suppose that men are more exposed to temptation

when gold is within their reach (and that this is Mr. Fremantle’s view

may be gathered from one of his reasons for urging a removal of the

Mint, viz., to avoid “opportunities for peculation”) than when they are

operating upon silver or bronze; yet we find by the above demonstration

that sovereigns and half-sovereigns yield almost _the worst wages_ to

the men, for the sums specified are divided amongst the whole body of

them, who probably number now, as when I left the Mint, 27 men and

11 boys. The contrast is stronger if the payment for _florins_ be

compared with that for THREEPENCES, which, with a tithe of the labour,

yield just _double_ the remuneration. The Reporters give a reason

why they altered the system, which after I have pointed out the above

facts, will seem to be curious. They state that the _inequalities of

wages_ induce “the improvident to contract liabilities, and, on the

other hand, the more skilful workmen are induced to accept employment

elsewhere, and the Mint loses their services.” In my own experience,

the men prefer regular wages of a smaller amount to an irregular income

of greater value, because they can then regulate their household

expenses and save money by fixed weekly sums, but that this reason

never entered the heads of the Reporters is manifest from their own

admission. They urge “_this arrangement_ because _an average saving

of £100 a year will be effected_,” which saving is to come out of the

pockets of men already underpaid. I would say to the Reporters, “Muzzle

not the ox that treadeth out the corn.”

The total cost, then, of producing a sovereign in 1857 under proper

management was 0·174_d._, while under Mr. Graham’s system it would

appear to have been 0·311_d._ in 1864. If, however, the facts be

examined, and stripped of the sensational effect of the cost of one

coin, it will be found that the difference is far from infinitesimal,

for whereas the total absolute cost per 1,000, inclusive of everything,

was 14_s._ 4¼_d._ in 1857, it had reached £1 5_s._ 11¼_d._ in the

years 1864-66 (see page 117). The increased expense thus incurred

amounts to 11_s._ 7_d._ on each 1,000 coins, or, on the whole amount

of that coinage, to £3,280 4_s._ This, then, is the state of cost at a

selected period, when a large amount was coined weekly. But what would

have been the cost had it been taken on the total coinage? For then

we should have found an increase in the amount per 1,000 pieces for

salaries and contingent expenses, whereas the figures for 1857 include

the whole coinage—beginning, middle, and ending; so that the average

produce of coins per week, although appearing to be smaller than that

of 1864, is really far greater, for whereas the largest number reached

in any one week in 1864 was 585,899[97] pieces, in 1857 the largest

number in any one week was 915,506[98] pieces, or larger by 329,607

pieces, the average per week being 17,253 pieces less, because the

coinages of 1864-1866 referred to, do not contain the beginning and

“tailing-off” of the coinage; in simple fact, they are figures written

_for effect, not for information_. That the complete coinage costs

more for salaries and contingent expenses is self-evident, because

those expenses remain the same if no coins be struck, but that this

is a fact is demonstrated by the little coinages of 1858 in the same

table,[99] where it will be seen that, although the payments for wages

nearly approach the cost of 1857, the cost for salaries and contingent

expenses is greater than it was in 1864. Another point is here also

proved to demonstration—that whereas the loss by coining is clearly

proved to be unnecessary, the late Master of the Mint states it at

6_s._ per 1,000, or £300 per million coined. That this should have

been so stated is of ill omen,[100] for when the belief of Mr. Brande

and his colleagues led them to the conclusion that loss was necessary

at a mean rate of £373 per million, they exceeded £500; and, by rule

of proportion, we may expect the Mint to make, now that the belief of

the late Master has found expression, a loss of £452.[101] Be this as

it may, the difference between 6_s._ and 2_s._ 9½_d._ is sufficient to

make men think, for even this trifle of 3_s._ 2½_d._ on 1,000 coins

amounts to £908 2_s._ 6½_d._ on that single coinage. That the loss

on the coinages of 1858 should be so great is explained by the fact

that in a small coinage the first loss by gilding the machinery is as

great as in a large one; but in the case of a great coinage this is so

distributed over the mass as not to appear. Had it been determined,

however, to exhibit the actual facts by the system of selection

followed by others, not only would this loss of metal have disappeared,

but a gain would have been shown, for on those particular coins there

was an actual gain of 1·39 ounces, which is at the rate of £9 18_s._

10½2_d._ per million coined, or 2·386_d._ per 1,000 pieces coined, so

reducing the cost of these actual coins to £1 0_s._ 10½_d._ and £1

1_s._ 6_d._ per 1,000 respectively; but as these matters are dwelt upon

for information alone, it is preferred to place the fair proportion of

the loss on this coinage on this portion of it. It should be observed

that the contingent expenses for 1857 do not include £1,100 voted for

the new files,[102] because that sum was never appropriated to that

purpose; but that they do include the subsistence paid to the men, and,

indeed, every possible sum other than weekly wages paid to the men by

the piece-work scale above quoted. I have not questioned, nor have I

investigated, the figures used by the late Master of the Mint, for as

he wrote those papers, and invited the Signatories to give their names

after the copies were fairly made, it is but just to suppose that that

gentleman satisfied himself of their accuracy.

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

93.]

[Footnote 98: See the Mint Books.]

[Footnote 99: See page 117.]

[Footnote 100: See page 125.]

[Footnote 101: See page 129.]

[Footnote 102: See pages 44, 179.]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed to reduce the value of

the gold coinage by removing one grain of gold from the sovereign, a

reduction of 0·81119 per cent, of its value. This matter has been so

fully discussed, and its error so completely demonstrated, that little

need be here said; but there is one consideration which should not be

omitted. The new standard of value, for such it will be, will be worth

only its value in gold immediately after it has quitted our shores. To

travellers, therefore, it is a tax of about one per cent., for each of

Mr. Lowe’s pounds will fetch but 19_s._ 10_d._, and, whether the coins

be exchanged here or abroad, the reduction must be borne; whereas, if

it were determined to charge the _importer_ for the cost of coining,

and for that alone, no tax could fall on individuals—a system which

must be unjust, and the coin would, by this burden, be restricted in

its power of sale as bullion, so small a sum as one-eighth of one per

cent. having frequently determined the sending of coin rather than

of bullion, because, when the exchanges are nearly equal, merchants

thus save the cost of assaying, which, inclusive of loss of interest,

&c., amounts to 2_s._ 6_d._ per £100. To fix, then, the sum proper

to charge for the coining of gold is practically a simple matter, if

it be desired, as should be the case, to protect our coinage from

conversion into bullion, to the profit of special merchants, but to the

loss of the nation. In the following proposition the exact cost can be

determined, and that should be the maximum limit of a Mint charge or

_mintage_, for if that charge be so enlarged as to insure a profit, the

fears of Mr. J. G. Hubbard as to the illicit coiners relieving the Mint

may be expected to be realised.

Between April, 1855, and December, 1865, £59,581,957 were coined, or

an average of £5,958,195 in each year. If, however, six millions be

accepted as the average yearly coinage of gold, it will give data for

the following calculations.

That the cost of coining may be always the same, let there be

thirty-six efficient workmen and twelve boys, and let these be paid

for wages in the following manner:—To each man £1 a week, whether at

work or not, and to boys a sum beginning at 14_s._ per week, to be

increased 1_s._ per week for each additional year of service, until the

age of twenty be reached, when they should receive the same sum of £1

as is paid to the men, but the “rating as men” should be stopped till

a vacancy occurs, that the number of men, inclusive of melters, shall

not exceed thirty-six, as then no injustice will be done the men, and

the boys are sufficiently provided for to enable them to wait. When,

however, work is in progress I would pay for piece-work as follows; for—

Sovereigns 0·806 per 100 lbs. troy of coined money.

Half Sovereigns 1·571 ” ”

Florins 0·555 ” ”

Shillings 0·800 ” ”

Sixpences 1·348 ” ”

Threepences 2·330 ” ”

Bronze pence 7·500 per ton of coined money.

” halfpence 10·000 ” ”

” farthings 15·000 ” ”

This sum should be divided by a simple system equally amongst the

workpeople, so that men should take one whole share, boys who have

served more than three years and a half two-thirds of a share, and boys

of less service than three years and a half one-third of a share. When

the fair share of piece-work exceeds the permanent amount of fixed

wages, that sum should be deducted from the total sum allotted to each,

so that the permanent wages would become a fixed charge secured on the

piece-work to be performed. This being performed intelligently, each

workman would participate in the benefit, therefore each would do his

best; whereas no increase can take place in the cost of production, for

any carelessness in the various operations simply causing so much waste

labour, would bring no remuneration, and the wages would thus bear

proportion to the anxiety incurred and be equalized.

To pursue, then, this proposition further, it will be convenient to

assume that 420,600 sovereigns are coined per week, this being a fair

average amount to take if the complete coinage be conceived to be

6,000,000 of finished coin. In such a case fourteen weeks would be

required to effect the operation, and its total cost will stand thus:—

For assays by out-door assayers 998·4

” wages to workmen 1,035·0

” salaries and contingent expenses 2,843·0

” loss of metal by coining 1,200·0

--------

£6,076·4

In estimating salaries and contingent expenses the estimates of 1857

have been taken, because the pressure for bronze has passed away,

and the establishment has, it is supposed, gone back to its then

dimensions. At that period it was usual to estimate the cost of coining

gold, inclusive of assaying, at the rate of one-sixth per cent. In

the above calculations the cost of assaying is included, as well as

the salaries and contingent expenses, from which, however, has been

deducted the fixed wages paid to the workpeople for fourteen weeks,

because they are supposed to have been earned as piece-work.

Allowance at the extravagant rate of £200 per million coined is also

made for loss of metal by coining, so that under this proposition the

total cost of producing six millions of coined gold becomes £6,076·40.

This must be the absolute sum, for the cost of dies, police, &c.,

is included in the amount for salaries and contingent expenses; it

therefore follows that each £100 would cost for manufacture £0.101273,

or about 2_s._ 0¼_d._ Here, then, are exhibited the grounds on which

the calculations are based, and unless there are errors on the face of

the figures it is demonstrated that the total cost of coining, even

with an extravagant estimate, may be reduced to about one-tenth of one

per cent. Why, then, should a profit of nine-tenths of one per cent.

be desired or granted? If an ultimate decision should be formed to

charge £1 for each thousand sovereigns coined, a stimulus will be given

to the Mint authorities to investigate the cause of their losses, the

means whereby these may be stopped, and to how great an extent useless

officers may be parted with, thus to make a minute but legitimate

saving out of the allowance, for there is no substantial reason why we

should coin free of charge; nor, on the other hand, is it right that

the cost of that operation should fall on the tax-payer, while a just

rate for mintage would, unless under very exceptional circumstances,

protect the coinage from illegitimate conversion into bullion, for it

must be remembered that there is already in reality a tax of 1½_d._ per

ounce for the conversion of bullion into coin, paid by the _importer_

to the Bank of England, and the charge for mintage will be in addition

to that tax.

A very strong reason against an exorbitant charge may be found in

the fact that the French Mint is content to fix its rate at about 6

francs 70 centimes for each kilogramme of their standard gold, which

is coined into pieces of the value of 3,100 francs, or about 0·216129

per cent., say 4_s._ 3¾_d._ for each £100 coined, and this under a

system of contract which gives a profit to the contractors, so that it

becomes clear, coining is practically done AT A FIXED RATE IN FRANCE,

that rate being above the actual cost of our coinage in 1857, but below

the charge proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by six-tenths

of one per cent., irrespective of the deduction of 1½_d._ per ounce

made at the Bank when gold is bought.[103] This being the case, it is

reasonable to suppose that all the gold for coining will go to France;

whereas, if it be desired to convert the coin of France into _our

proposed debased coinage_, each £1,000 so converted will produce but

£990·275, because the 1½_d._ per ounce is equal to 0·16051 per cent.,

and to this tax is added 0·81119 per cent. by the deduction of the

one grain proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it must be

understood that the coined money of France will still be treated as

bullion. Perhaps a still plainer view of the case may be obtained, if

it be assumed that a man has a million pounds’ worth of gold, which,

for cheapness’ sake, he gets coined in France, where he will pay

£2,161·29 for coining it. Circumstances, however, make it desirable

that this million in French gold coins should be converted into coin

of the British standard as coined at the Royal Mint, where the owner

will find that, for the conversion of his bullion, he has to submit to

a deduction equal in value to £9,725, which, added to the sum charged

in France for the first coining, makes a total of £11,886·29. How many

persons will be willing to sacrifice such a sum for the convenience

of others? The result must be that, unless under the most exceptional

circumstances, no gold except for currency can be coined in England,

it will inevitably be sent to France, because coined gold will there

always be 0·81119 per cent. more valuable than in England.

[Footnote 103: Sec pages 3, 127.]

In discussions recently earned on in the newspapers, the liability

of gold coin to be sifted of its pieces which are heavier than the

theoretical standard has been a good deal dwelt upon; but there is one

view which, perhaps, has not occurred to those who are unacquainted

with the manufacturing details. It is true, then, that the standard

weight of a sovereign deduced from its proportional weight to 20 lbs.

troy is 123·274478 grains, and that this piece may vary so far in

weight as to be either too light or too heavy by no less than 0·2000

grain, and yet be a perfectly legal tender. With careful manufacture

the coins issued should be so apportioned that there shall be half

the number on the light and the other half on the heavy side of the

standard weight.[104] By referring to the papers furnished for the

guidance of the jury at the trial of the pyx it will be found that the

gold coins reported on at the last two trials were on the light side of

the theoretical weight, for those submitted to trial in 1861 were by

number 24,655,335 pieces, and weighed only an equivalent to 24,654,849

sovereigns, consequently the Bank of England received exactly £486

more in coined moneys than their bullion was worth; therefore this

was a profit to that Institution. And on the occasion of the trial

which took place in 1866 there were by number 34,927,188 pieces, which

weighed only an equivalent to 34,927,008 sovereigns, so that the Bank

gained exactly £180. These facts demonstrate the fairness with which

the Mint coins and issues its coined moneys, not in accordance with

the letter, but with the spirit of the law which governs its actions;

yet the evidence thus given is to the effect that the bulk of the

coins are on the light side. The current weight of the sovereign, as

authorised by Act of Parliament 33 Vict., cap. 10, and published in

the _London Gazette_, 12th August, 1870, is 122·50 grains, and below

this weight the Bank of England will not receive it in payment of

twenty shillings; but the half-sovereign, being a coin of convenience,

is allowed to circulate till its weight, has fallen to 61·125 grains,

below which it is not received at the Bank in liquidation of a debt

of ten shillings. Thus, then, while a sovereign may be legally coined

so that its weight may be either 123·474478 grains or 123·074478

grains, it is still permitted to circulate, and is a legal tender at

the current weight of 122·50 grains, or a difference of 0·574478 grain

below the minimum weight permitted by the New Coinage Act for its issue

from the Mint. If, as will be found to be the case on an average of

years, the rejected coins by weight amount to 16 per cent. when the

remedy is 0·20 grain, and to 9 per cent. when the remedy is 0·25 grain,

it is evident that the chance of obtaining profit by picking coins

is not greater than 3·5 per cent., because the difference between a

fifth and a quarter of a grain makes an increase of 7 per cent., and

of these rejected pieces rather less than half are on the heavy side,

because, as has been shown, the whole deliveries to the Bank of England

are on an average light pieces; therefore it will be perfectly safe

to consider that each hundred sovereigns contain at the extreme three

coins which may be two-tenths of a grain heavier than the standard

weight of 123·274478 grains; but it is by no means certain that any

hundred pieces would contain one single coin heavy by this amount

even if the remedy were made to be 0·25 grain, because the automaton

balances of Mr. Cotton are so accurate as never to permit the issue of

pieces beyond the limits assigned, and any piece which at its passage

through the machine equalled the maximum weight would be, and is,

inevitably reduced—infinitesimally, if you will—in weight, by abrasion

against other pieces in the act of falling, as well as when put into

its bag previously to going to the Bank of England. When the remedy was

0·30 grain the case was different, but it may now be assumed that it is

impossible for any one to make profit by selecting heavy pieces,—this

irrespective of the fact that the bankers find it worth their while

to select heavy pieces for transmission to the Bank of England,

because they then obtain the coins which are of current weight, yet

not intrinsically worth twenty shillings;—whereas the recent public

discussion makes it appear that it is worth the risk to certain unknown

individuals in Brussels to buy our newly-coined sovereigns, pick from

them such as exceed 123·274 grains, and melt them into ingots for sale

as bullion, and return to us the light pieces. The only modes by which

it pays such persons to buy new sovereigns for the purpose of such

gain is to shake them together in canvas bags, or to submit them to

the electrotype process—as is often done by chemical students—and by

these means obtain from each a specific amount of gold, sending the

sweated coins into circulation, having reduced each of them to the

lowest current weight by a very short rough usage. It is different when

coins, instead of being individually weighed, are simply _pounded_,

that is, weighed _en masse_, just to determine that a certain number

are in a given weight: in such circumstances many coins most unequable

may be issued, as was the case when silver coins were thus treated in

the Royal Mint in August, 1864, against all sound principles. At that

period the then Master, under false notions of economy,[105] determined

not to weigh individual pieces of silver money, because silver coins

were mere tokens, but when coins bearing the device of FLORINS, and

ranging in intrinsic value from 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._ 9_d._ irrespective

of extrinsic worth, were returned to the Mint, this economy was soon

abandoned.

[Footnote 104: See pages 39, 73.]

[Footnote 105: See page 71.]

I have dwelt at considerable length upon the losses incurred by

the coining of gold; such losses I now find are defended by high

authorities, but I hope some effort may be produced by my words, yet

not mine only, for I will quote those used by Mr. Graham in his letter

to the Treasury[106]:—

[Footnote 106: See page 178.]

“This gives in a million coined a net loss of £257 7_s._ 0¾_d._;

... but after making allowance for the circumstances just stated,

the loss of gold in melting remains higher, in my opinion, than it

ought to be; and it will, I trust, be found to admit of some

further reduction in future years.

“A correct estimate of the whole waste in coining is obtained by

combining the returns of the two departments:—

£ _s. d._

Loss of melting department 257 7 0¾ per million.

Surplus of coining department 50 13 0 ”

-----------

Difference 206 14 0¾ ”

It thus appears that in 1858-59 the net loss in minting £1,000,000

of gold was £206 14_s._ 0¾_d._’

He then proceeds to show that “the loss on the gold coinage for the

(_then_) last three years was £172 8_s._ 11½_d._,” yet Mr. Fremantle’s

return to the House of Lords No. 30, 1870, shows a loss of £464 as the

average in the last three years, and he in “European Mints,” uses these

significant words: “The waste shown to have existed of late years in

the English Mint has not been excessive.”

I reproduce these words because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has

accepted contracts for coinages for foreign countries, and I propose to

study the matter in relation to his probable profit.

With such losses accruing as are here exhibited, it appears to be a

step worthy only the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to advertise

for coinage contracts for foreign countries. At what price will they

be granted to him? It is perfectly clear that, to make a profit, he

must charge more than it will cost, so it will be well to examine his

chance of success. We may assume that it will cost him 2_s._ 6_d._ to

coin £100 in sovereigns as the expenses of salaries, wages, and loss;

in addition to these he will find it necessary to pack his coined money

for exportation, whither he must pay carriage, insurance, &c. Should he

feel that he need not charge for wear and tear of machinery, he must

still remember that it will require renewal at intervals, and every

expense must be included in a total sum of 4_s._ 3¾_d._, or the foreign

contractors (whom he was sanguine enough to suppose would give him

information) will be sure to beat him in the tender for the contract.

As to silver, it is already certain that his loss by coining would

alone make any profit hopeless even to a Chancellor of the Exchequer

who knows how to get five quarters’ taxes in one year. Lord Kinnaird

has shown that the Mint loses by manufacturing silver coin, by sheer

loss of metal, at the rate of 3_s._ 9¾_d._ for each £100 coined (see

page 146), and in addition to this tax he has to pay 1_s._ 9_d._ for

each 1,000 coins manufactured for labour, besides the contingent

expenses, including packing, insurance, &c. All expenses must come

within 15_s._ for each £100, because this is the sum at which the

foreign contractors gladly accept coinages. While saying thus much, it

has been necessary to reserve facts which would be indispensable to a

contractor, because such information should be rendered to a contractor

only on terms such as another would be willing to offer for it, and to

publish it here would be hardly fair to those whose business it is to

live by coining.

The Royal Mint, suffering thus from faults which its officials profess

themselves unable to remedy, it seems an eccentric proceeding that

while the Government Institution bears good-naturedly all the loss, the

Bank of England should obtain all the profit, “as a set-off against

the stock of bullion it is compelled to keep.” It is to be remarked

that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was “necessary to

expedite the coining of gold, because it bears interest while under

coinage,” thus exhibiting an absence of knowledge, for the Mint pays no

interest. It is no concern of the Bank whether its bullion be reserved

as ingots or coin, because it is compelled by Act of Parliament to keep

a specified amount to meet the excess issue of its notes, and this

circumstance alone enables the Bank of England to coin gold without

loss of interest—gold at the Mint is still considered as reserved by

the Bank. So far, indeed, from the Bank losing money by importing gold

for coming, it makes a clear profit, as is shown by the following

figures—this even under its new system of assay—