THE GOVERNMENT IN ACCOUNT WITH THE SILVER COINAGE._The Royal Mint

COINED IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.:—

Crowns £322,000

Half-Crowns 2,387,000

Shillings 3,304,000

Sixpences 919,000

----------

£6,932,000

==========

Supposing the cost of the Silver to have been 5_s._ 1_d._ an ounce

in the new money, there would remain 5d. per ounce as profit to the

Government. That 5_d._ would be about 7·57 per Cent. on the amount

coined.

7·57 per Cent. on £6,932,000 = £525,000

Compound Interest thereon at

3½ per Cent. for 43 Years, the

true Average Number of Years 1,779,000

as nearly as can be made out --------- 2,304,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.:—

Crowns 141,000

Half-Crowns 1,114,000

Shillings 879,000

Sixpences 81,000

----------

7·57 per Cent. on £2,215,000 = £168,000

==========

Compound Interest at 3½ for 35 Years 392,000

-------- 560,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF WILLIAM IV.:—

Half-Crowns 381,000

Shillings 412,000

Sixpences 282,000

----------

7·57 per Cent. on £1,075,000 = £81,000

=========

Compound Interest at 3½ for 15 years 111,000

-------- 192,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF VICTORIA:—

Crowns 117,000

Half-Crowns 1,043,000

Florins 1,541,000

Shillings 2,610,000

Sixpences 1,182,000

----------

7·57 per Cent. on £6,493,000 = £492,000

==========

Compound Interest at 3½ for 15 Years 332,000

------

824,000

----------

£3,880,000

==========

LOSS BY WEAR:—

On amount remaining in Circulation £910,000

Ditto withdrawn from Circulation 255,000

-------- £1,165,000

EXPENSES OF COINAGE:—

Crowns and Half-Crowns at 124,000

2¼ per Cent.

Shillings at 205,000

2·85 per Cent. -------

329,000

Compound Interest thereon, 30 Years 594,000

at 3½ per Cent. -------- 923,000

Sixpences at 3¼ per Cent. 80,000

Compound Interest thereon, 26 Years 116,000

at 3¼ per Cent. -------- 196,000

Florins at 2½ per Cent. 39,000

Compound Interest thereon, 5 Years 5,000

at 3¼ per Cent. -------- 44,000

7·57]per Cent. on the amount of Silver

recoined at the Government’s expense 100,000

(£1,316,500) Compound Interest, 41,000

at 3½ per Cent. for Average of 10 Years -------- 141,000

Balance 1,411,000

----------

£3,880,000

==========

I communicate this Statement as my grounds

for the Estimate that the Government owes the

Silver Coinage a million and a half, and not

as an Account.

_December, 1860._ W. MILLER.

It has been proposed to reap a harvest of profit from the silver

coinage, just as was done with the bronze coinage, but with this

difference—that whereas the old _copper_ pennies, when alloyed with

tin and zinc, made TWO BRONZE pennies, thus making the profit by a

diminution of weight, the present suggestion is to reduce the amount

of silver in the silver coinage, and so to get profit by converting

the old coinage into a new one of lower standard. So long as silver

is only a token it can make no difference in matter of fact whether

that token be intrinsically worth sixpence, eightpence, or tenpence,

so that it represents and is legally payable for the twentieth part

of a pound up to a fixed amount; but in another light the lowering of

the standard has a very material interest to the people, and in this

way. If those coinages which are made of different alloys from our own,

that is, in different proportions of silver and copper, be examined, it

will be found that none of them _wear_ so well as our own. Elaborate

experiments, carefully made, determined that silver, when alloyed with

copper in the proportion of 222 of the former to 18 of the latter,

formed the most fitting alloy. Tested by practice in the pocket,

those experiments are demonstrated to have been justly performed, and

that their results were accurate. It is worthy of remark, that in the

reign of Edward III. these proportions formed the _Old Standard_,

showing that long anterior to that period it had been used, although

no record is preserved. It is also certain that these same proportions

were used in many subsequent reigns, and we can but suppose that our

ancestors had their wise reasons for arriving at such a standard.

Indeed, Mr. Hatchett, in his elaborate experiments on gold and silver

coins, arrived at the conclusion that metal of medium ductility was

best fitted for the manufacture of coined money. He recommended the

preserving of the present standard for gold on that ground, and fails

to make any remarks as to silver; hence it may be fairly assumed that

he considered it the best for its purpose. It is, however, certain that

pure silver is too ductile, while silver alloyed with 20 per cent.

is really as ductile as pure silver, and in our present standard we

appear to have the medium impliedly recommended by Mr. Hatchett. The

old proportion was again adopted for our standard of silver coin when,

by the Act Geo. III. cap. 68, sec. 4, it was enacted that 66 shillings

shall be made from the pound troy of silver of the standard of 11 oz.

2 dwts. of fine silver and 18 dwts. of alloy. The alteration proposed

has varied from a mixture of 10 per cent. to one of 20 per cent. of

alloy. Now, one of these is a minute alteration, but in such matters

it is surprising to the uninitiated to find how small a variation of

proportion effects a great change in character; take, for instance,

the difference in qualities of steel, where the proportion best fitted

for each purpose must be used, or waste is incurred. In cases where

the metal is required for cutlery a different steel is selected from

that which is used for the manufacture of dies, and yet the difference

consists in a minute proportion of carbon, to be detected only by

analysis. So with the alloy of silver; and, if a profit be made by

reducing the proportion of silver, a greater loss will take place by

wear and tear, and the people pay for this, because the profit on a

silver coinage depends on the length of the period during which the

coins wear. Should a change be effected, it is to be hoped that it will

not be based on the series of experiments lately conducted in the Royal

Mint, and which were simply determinations of how much grinding each

alloy could bear under different circumstances, there being no doubt

that the proper mode is to let some thousands of coins be carried by

careful observers in their pockets in the ordinary mode of carrying

money, and at intervals to weigh those coins and see their loss, as

well as to examine them for their deterioration in an artistic point.

For it should not be forgotten that the act of coining is an important

act of Sovereignty, and should be properly performed, that the

Monarch may not appear to be held in light esteem. The ordinary wear

encountered in the use of coins by shopkeepers could also be tested

without risk or trouble. We as a people need not debase our coinage

simply for the sake of a first gain, for, if that be the object, the

Government might as well contract for advertisements, and thus make

profit; but it may fairly be doubted whether our shillings would be

improved in appearance if they were substituted for paving-stones,—the

late favourite medium for advertising. Yet, if gain alone is to be the

consideration, these points should be determined. It appears to be the

object of a coinage to make a medal which shall best encounter wear and

tear without loss or deterioration. This, we know, is best gained by

employing artists of the highest talent, and coiners who know how to

give effect to the artist’s intention. It is almost indisputably the

fact that this has never been so well performed as in the shillings

of William Wyon, designed after the bust by Chantry, and which coins,

to this day, far surpass those of subsequent coinages in every way.

The remarks of Mr. Pepys seem to be quite fitting if applied to our

present coinage, and demonstrate how truthfully it has been said that

history reproduces itself; for on Feb. 20, 1660, he says:—“... where

we met with Mr. Slingsby, who showed me the stamps of the King’s new

coyne; which is strange to see, how good they are in the stamp, and

bad in the money for lack of skill to make them. But he says Blondeau

will shortly come over, and then we shall have it better, and the best

in the world.” The protecting edge should be raised and thick, and the

work of the die well sunk, as then by friction less surface is exposed,

and the coin would not only last longer in circulation, but would

during its whole existence carry the image and superscription. While

this improvement should be effected, the note of Mr. Pepys, on the

23rd November, 1663, should not be forgotten, for he says, with great

point:—“... with Alderman Backewell talking of the new money, which

he says will never be counterfeited, he believes; but it is so deadly

inconvenient for telling, it is so thick, and the edges are made to

turn up.” Mr. Backewell had become accustomed to the _hammered_ money,

and felt the thickness of the _milled_; but we have found the advantage

of the milled money, and do not like it when, after a short existence,

it becomes as thin as the hammered money was. The protecting edge not

only protects the design on the coin, but it also makes the coin more

difficult of bending, and bent coins are troublesome.

In former reigns unwise counsels have prevailed, and the coinages have

been tampered with; but the invariable event has been disaster, as

has been clearly shown by Mr. Lowndes, who says:—“Although the former

debasements of coins by public authority, especially those in the

reigns of King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth, might be

projected for the profit of the Crown, and the projectors might measure

that profit by the excessive quantities of alloy that were mixed with

the silver or gold, and although this was enterprised by a Prince who

could stretch his prerogative very far upon his people, and was done

in times when this nation had very little commerce, inland or foreign,

to be injured or prejudiced thereby, yet experience presently showed

that the projectors were mistaken, and that it was absolutely necessary

to have the base moneys reformed; the doing whereof was begun by King

Edward the Sixth himself, carried on by King Philip and Queen Mary,

and happily finished (though not without great charge, vexation, and

trouble, the only offspring of such designs) by Queen Elizabeth, who

(as is noted above) in the third year of her reign, when money was not

plentiful, erected a distinct Mint in the Tower to convert the base

(not counterfeit money) into sterling;” and continuing, he says:—

“Thirdly. Because making of base money will disgrace this Government

in future generations, the critics in every age being apt to estimate

the goodness or badness of ancient Governments by their coin, as hath

been done, especially in the case of the Romans, and a temptation of

this kind ought not to be left for future ages, to the prejudice of the

honour of the present King.”

Surely, with such experience before him, the Chancellor of the

Exchequer cannot wish to persevere with his proposal—which can hardly

be called original—to debase our gold coinage, when such a measure has

been so deliberately condemned by experience in former periods.

STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMED IN THE COINING DEPARTMENT BETWEEN OCTOBER

1ST, 1857, AND MARCH 31ST, 1858, INCLUSIVE.

The Coinage was completed in 63 Days. The Value of the coined Silver

was £234177·96875.

IN ROLLING ROOM.

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

| RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |

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

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

| As by Mint } | | | |

| Office Beam. } 761202·00| Florin Fillets | 728342·56 | |

| | | | |

| As by Rolling } 761212·67| ” Ends | 32956·95 | 32956·90|

| Room Beam. } | | | |

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

|Showing a plus } | Deduct }| | |

| difference. } 10·67| “received.” }| 761299·51 | |

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

| | Increase }| | |

| Bars for Shillings. | during work. }| 86·84 | |

| As by Mint } | | | |

| Office Beam. } 528613·00|Shilling Fillets| 504599·40 | |

| | | | |

| As by Rolling } | | | |

| Room Beam. } 528617·25| ” Ends | 24081·80 | 24081·91|

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

|Showing a plus } | Deduct }| | |

| difference. } 4·25| “received.” }| 528681·20 | |

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

| | Increase }| | |

| Bars for Sixpences. | during work. }| 63·95 | |

| | | |

| As by Mint } | | | |

| Office Beam. } 175644·00|Sixpenny Fillets| 168666·70 | |

| | | | |

| As by Rolling } | | | |

| Room Beam. } 175644·54| ” Ends | 7003·10 | 7003·07|

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

|Showing a plus } | Deduct }| | |

| difference. } 0·54| “received.” }|175669·80 | |

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

| | Increase }| | |

| Bars for Threepences. | during work. }| 24·26 | |

| As by Mint } | Threepenny }| | |

| Office Beam. } 33643·00| Fillets. }| 32661·25 | |

| | | | |

| As by Rolling } | Threepenny }| | |

| Room Beam. } 33642·20| Ends. }| 987·55 | 987·55|

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

|Showing a minus } | Deduct }| | |

| difference. } 0·80| “Received.” }| 33648·80 | |

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

| | Increase }| | |

| | during work. }| 6·60 | 65029·43|

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

IN CUTTING ROOM.

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

RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |

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

| | As by | As by |

| | Cutting | Mint |

| | Room | Office |

| | Beam. | Beam. |

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

Fillets for Florins. | | | |

Ounces. | | Ounces. | Ounces. |

As by Rolling } | | | |

Room Beam. } 728342·56| Florin Blanks |433013·65 | |

| | | |

As by Cutting } | | | |

Room Beam. } 728339·29| ” Scissel |295327·34 |295327·98|

----------| |----------| |

Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |

difference. } 3·27| “received.” }|728340·99 | |

| |----------| |

| Increase }| | |

Fillets for Shillings. | during work. }| 1·70 | |

| | | |

Ounces. | | | |

As by Rolling } | | | |

Room Beam. } 504599·40| Shilling Blanks|320518·84 | |

| | | |

As by Cutting } | | | |

Room Beam. } 504598·71| ” Scissel|184117·20 |184117·20|

----------| |----------| |

Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |

difference. } 0·69| “received.” }|504636·04 | |

| |----------| |

| Increase }| | |

Fillets for Sixpences. | during work. }| 37·33 | |

| | | |

Ounces. | | | |

As by Rolling } | Sixpenny }| | |

Room Beam. } 168666·70| Blanks. }|101407·09 | |

| | | |

As by Cutting } | Sixpenny }| | |

Room Beam. } 168666·25| Scissel. }| 67271·99 | 67271·99|

----------| |----------| |

Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |

difference. } 0·45| “received.” }|168679·08 | |

| |----------| |

| Increase }| | |

Fillets for Threepences. | during work. }| 12·83 | |

| | | |

Ounces. | | | |

As by Rolling } | Threepenny }| | |

Room Beam. } 32661·25 | Blanks. }| 19373·13 | |

| | | |

As by Cutting } | Threepenny }| | |

Room Beam. } 32661·25 | Scissel. }| 13293·73 | 13293·73|

--------- | |----------|---------|

Showing no } | Deduct }| | |

difference. } 0·00 | “received.” }| 32666·86 | |

| |----------| |

| Increase }| | |

| during work. }| 5·61 |560010·90|

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

IN WEIGHING ROOM.

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

| RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |

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

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

| | | | |

| As by Cutting } | | | |

| Room Beam. } 433013·65 |Florin Blanks. | 423988·43 | |

| | | | |

|As by Weighing } | | | |

| Room Beam. } 433010·55 |Florin Rejected.| 9020·63 | 9020·63|

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

|Showing a minus } | Deduct } | | |

| difference. } 3·10 | “received.” } | 433009·06 | |

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

| | Loss during } | | |

| Blanks for Shillings. | work. } | 1·49 | |

| | | | |

| Room Beam. } 320518·84 |Shilling Blanks.| 315492·95 | |

| | | | |

|As by Weighing } | Shilling } | | |

| Room Beam. } 320516·07 | Rejected. } | 5021·79 | 5021·79|

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

|Showing a minus } | Deduct } | | |

| difference. } 2·77 | “received.” } | 320514·74 | |

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

| | Loss during } | | |

| Blanks for Sixpences. | work. } | 1·33 | |

| | | | |

| As by Cutting } | Sixpenny } | | |

| Room Beam. } 101407·09 | Blanks. } | 99083·98 | |

| | | | |

|As by Weighing } | Sixpenny } | | |

| Room Beam. } 101406·65 | Rejected. } | 2223·63 | 2223·63|

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

|Showing a minus } | Deduct } | | |

| difference. } 0·44 | “received.” } | 101407·61 | |

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

| | Increase } | | |

| Blanks for Threepences. | during work.} | 0·96 | |

| | | | |

| As by Cutting } | Threepenny } | | |

| Room Beam. } 19373·13 | Blanks. } | 19326·87 | |

| | | | |

|As by Weighing } | Threepenny } | | |

| Room Beam. } 19372·96 | Rejected. } | 46·03 | 46·03|

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

|Showing a minus } | Deduct } | | |

| difference. } 0·17 | “received.” } | 19372·90 | |

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

| | Loss during } | | |

| | work. } | 0·06 |16312·08|

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

IN ANNEALING ROOM.

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

| RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |

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

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

| | | | |

|As by Weighing } | | | |

| Room Beam. } 423988·43 | Florin Blanks | 423606·37 | |

| | | | |

| | Loss of }| | |

|As by Annealing} | Weight by }| | |

| Room Beam. } 423984·25 | Annealing and}| 367·84 | |

| -----------+ Blanching. }| | |

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

|Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |

| difference. } 4·18 | “received.” }| 423974·21 | |

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

| | Loss | 10·04 | |

| | | | |

|As by Weighing } | | | |

| Room Beam. } 315492·95 |Shilling Blanks| 315190·47 | |

| | | | |

| | Loss of }| | |

|As by Annealing} | Weight by }| | |

| Room Beam. } 315490·42 | Annealing and}| 283·86 | |

| -----------+ Blanching. }| | |

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

|Showing a minus} 2·53 | Deduct }| 315474·33 | |

| difference. } | “received.” }| | |

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

| | Loss | 16·09 | |

| | | | |

|As by Weighing } | Sixpenny }| | |

| Room Beam. } 99083·98 | Blanks. }| 98980·28 | |

| | | | |

| | Loss of }| | |

|As by Annealing} | Weight by }| | |

| Room Beam. } 99083·67 | Annealing and}| 103·39 | |

| -----------+ Blanching. }| | |

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

|Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |

| difference. } 0·31 | “received.” }| 99083·67 | |

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

| | Loss | 0·00 | |

| | | | |

|As by Weighing } | Threepenny }| | |

| Room Beam. } 19326·87 | Blanks. }| 19304·08 |Supply.[123]|

| | | | |

| | Loss of }| | |

|As by Annealing} | Weight by }| | |

| Room Beam. } 19326·72 | Annealing and}| 22·64 | 47·67 |

| -----------+ Blanching. }| | |

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

|Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |

| difference. } 0·15 | “received.” }| 19326·72 | |

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

| | Loss | 0·00 | 47·67 |

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

[Footnote 123: See page 162.]

IN PRESS ROOM.

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

| RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |

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

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

| | | | |

|As by Annealing} | | | |

| Room Beam. } 423606·37 |Florin Coin |420367·28 |420278·40|

| | | | |

|As by Press } | | | |

| Room Beam. } 423606·37 |Florin Brockages.| 2951·76 | 3069·61|

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

|Showing no } | Florin Pyx }| | |

| difference. } 0·00 | Pieces. }| 283·86 | 283·86|

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

| | Deduct }| | |

| | “received.” }|423602·90 | |

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

| |Loss | 3·47 | |

| | | | |

|As by Annealing} | | | |

| Room Beam. } 315190·47 | Shilling Coin |313853·64 |313847·00|

| | | | |

|As by Press } | Shilling }| | |

| Room Beam. } 315190·47 | Brockages. }| 1227·88 | 1228·17|

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

|Showing no } | Shilling Pyx }| | |

| difference. } 0·00 | Pieces. }| 107·87 | 107·87|

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

| | Deduct }| | |

| | “received.” }|315189·39 | |

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

| |Loss | 1.08 | |

| | | | |

|As by Annealing} | | | |

| Room Beam. } 98980·28 | Sixpenny Coin | 98279·81 | 98271·65|

| | | | |

|As by Press } | Sixpenny }| | |

| Room Beam. } 98980·28 | Brockages. }| 678·84 | 678·84|

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

|Showing no } | Sixpenny Pyx }| | |

| difference. } 0·00 | Pieces. }| 21·18 | 21·18|

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

| | Deduct }| | |

| | “received.” }| 98979·83 | |

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

| |Loss | 0·45 | |

| | | | |

|As by Annealing} | Threepenny }| | |

| Room Beam. } 19304·08 | Coin. }| 19145·45 | 19159·20|

| | | | |

|As by Press } | Threepenny }| | |

| Room Beam. } 19304·08 | Brockages. }| 154·85 | 154·85|

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

|Showing no } | Threepenny }| | |

| difference. } 0·00 | Pyx Pieces. }| 3·02 | 3·02|

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

| | Deduct }| | |

| | “received.” }| 19303·32 | |

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

| |Loss | 0·76 |857103·65|

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

Ounces.

Total received from Mint Office 1499104·00

” returned to ” ” 1498503·73

----------

Loss 600·27

==========

The proportional loss on this coinage was 0·199 ounces on each 500

ounces coined, instead of 1 in 500 as the Master had expected must

be the case.

The mean rate of

The Ends was 3·94 per cent. on the Rough Bars.

” Scissel was 37·85 ” ” ”

” Rejected Blanks was 0·89 ” ” ”

” Brockages was 0·38 ” ” ”

” Coined Money was 56.87 ” ” ”

” Coined Money was 59·22 ” ” Clean Bars

WAGES PAID TO WORKMEN BY PIECE-WORK SCALE.

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

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

| For Melting | 13·215| 9·176 | 3·079 | 0·584 |

| ” Rolling | 45·521| 42·045 | 28·111 | 8·165 |

| ” Cutting | 44·165| 46·008 | 28·899 | 8·052 |

| ” Annealing | 35·300| 45·965 | 28·869 | 11·260 |

| ” Coining | 29·192| 39·231 | 24·570 | 9·572 |

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

| Total wages paid | £167·393| £182·425 | £113·528 | £37·633 |

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

| 100 lbs. troy of | £0·475| £0·697 | £1·386 | £2·358 |

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

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

| | Rate per cent. of | Rate per cent. of |

| | Coined Money from | Coined Money from |

| | Rough Bars. | Clean Bars. |

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

| Florins | 55·26 | 57·76 |

| Shillings | 59·38 | 62·22 |

| Sixpences | 55·96 | 58·29 |

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

| |

| _To the_ MASTER OF THE MINT. |

| GEORGE F. ANSELL. |

| _May 6th 1858._ |

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

It would appear necessary that I should now give[124] a copy of one

of the reports I made to the Master, showing for silver a similarly

detailed history of its manipulation to that which was given for gold

(see page 92); and as that was fully explained, it is felt unnecessary

to say more of this report than to point out that the blanks are

simply stamped in the press room, and that as this operation produces

no alteration of weight, the losses recorded were due to abstractions

of coined money, and were reported to the Master as such, while the

loss exhibited in the annealing room was also due to the same cause.

The loss which appears to have arisen in the weighing room arises from

another cause. The blanks when operated upon lose little splinters of

metal, which are preserved, and at the end of the coinage go to a fund

of odd pieces, which are melted; and the ingot produced is assayed, its

estimated amount of silver is determined, and this is called _supply_,

and will be seen to be 47·67 ounces for the whole department, although

it appears in the annealing room account, because it is usually cleaned

in that room.

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

As regards the accounts for the rolling and cutting rooms, it would

be a source of interest to the curious could they but examine the

books and compare them for periods previously to and after 1857, when

it would be demonstrated that nearly the whole of the losses above

explained took place in those rooms. I stopped these _evaporations_,

and removed the word _loss_ which was habitually printed at the foot

of each day’s account, replacing it by the word GAIN, because that

significant word expressed what should have happened, and that which

under me did really take place in these rooms.

It is remarkable, but even in so simple a matter as the bronze coinage

there also arises a large loss—that is, a great part of the profit is

lost. I therefore propose to say a few words upon this subject, and

see if reason will confirm the facts of experience. The average value

of copper is about £100 a ton, and this may be assumed as the average

price of bronze in ingots. It is perfectly well understood that bronze

and copper coins are both accepted as token money; but some amongst us

may remember when copper pennies were so coined as that each penny was

intrinsically worth that sum, the intention being that any customer

could check the honesty of the shopkeeper when he bought an ounce of

tea or tobacco, by placing his “cart-wheel-penny” against the commodity

still in the scale. Experience, however, demonstrated that this was

not a right footing for a subservient coinage. It was found that when

copper in the market fluctuated to a price beyond 1_d._ per ounce, this

coinage was collected and melted. Therefore it was determined to make

the intrinsic far below the extrinsic value, and then to limit the

legal tender to 2_s._ in nominal value in copper money.

In 1860 the copper token money was replaced by bronze token money, and

the weight of this was still farther reduced, so that the intrinsic

value of a penny became as nearly as possible one farthing—that is to

say, a farthing’s worth of copper or bronze had given to it in the act

of coining an extrinsic value equal to a penny, by which a profit of

300 per cent. would appear to be realised. But since some of the bronze

is coined into pence, halfpence, and farthings, and these vary in

their proportional intrinsic value, it is felt to be fair to give the

Government every possible latitude, because Lord Kinnaird evidently

accepted those facts when he made his speech in the House of Lords.

Bronze costs £100 a ton, and a ton of bronze is, on an average,

converted into £358 when coined—that is to say, £100 intrinsic value

receives by the act of coining an extrinsic value equal to £358, and

so yields a profit of £258. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer last

year asked for, and obtained, £1,000 _to defray the loss on bronze_,

the fact being that on the value coined—£10,010—there should have been

a clear profit of £25,825. And it so happens that, by the return No.

157, 1869, a profit is admitted to the modest extent of £6,318 0_s._

2_d._ Why was the £1,000 asked for, and what became of the £6,318 0_s._

2_d._? and further, why was that modest sum allowed to take the place

of the proper profit, or £25,825?

The return above quoted, No. 157, 1869, shows that in the nine years,

1860-1868, the purchase value of copper bought for coinage was

£489,071, and the same return shows that this intrinsic value was

converted into money of the nominal value of £991,833; therefore,

by deducting the cost from that sum, there appears a clear profit

of £502,762 on bronze since 1860, which is at the moderate rate of

£102 per cent. on the outlay. It will be well to investigate farther,

and perhaps to take the contract given to Messrs. James Watt and Co.

for 1,720 tons in 1860. The sum paid to that firm, added to the cost

of copper supplied to them for the manufacture of bronze to produce

1,720 tons of coin, was £229,200; and the 1,720 tons of bronze money

forwarded to the Mint by the terms of that contract was, in nominal

value, when delivered, £696,293, so that the profit on that one

transaction was £467,093, or at the rate of £203 per cent. on the

outlay. The last coin (a penny) to complete this contract was struck by

Messrs. Watt at 9 A.M. on Thursday, the 11th of June, 1863; so that the

coinage, which has been conducted since that period, has been struck

under the superintendence of the present Mint officials. The return

No. 157, 1869, shows that, at the period when the Mint was receiving

bronze coin from the contractors, and was at the same time coining

bronze—viz., from 1860-1863, the profit was diluted from 258 to 108 per

cent.; but when the Mint took the whole manufacture from 1864 to 1868,

under Mr. John Graham alone, that profit was further lessened to 78·70

per cent., or rather less than £78 15_s._ was made where £258 should

have been made.

The Mint officials may, and probably will, plead that this return, as

well as that relating to silver, is “false;” still they must stand

or fall by their own figures, or issue intelligible and trustworthy

returns to the orders of the House of Commons; and these exhibit the

fact that Messrs. Watt’s contract gave a profit of 203 per cent.;

the Mint and Messrs. Watt’s contract jointly of 108 per cent.; the

Mint solely, of only 78¾ per cent. It will probably be asserted that

the purchase of the old copper money caused the apparent loss; but

this argument will be disposed of if we take the case of 1863, up

to which period 1,651 tons 8 cwts. 2 qrs. 27¾ lbs.; of worn copper

coin had been purchased at an absolute cost of £234·80 per ton. To

assume then that this was the cause for diminished profit, let us

see if it can be proved to demonstration. I have shown that a ton of

bronze money is worth £358, and a ton of copper, when bought as old

coin, £234·80; therefore, the copper so bought should yield profit of

about £152·50 per centum. But it should do more than this; for I, of

my own knowledge,—because I ordered it,—state that bronze was bought

to a considerable amount at the then current rate of new copper. The

following, however, is the worst that could happen:—If the whole of

the old copper cost £234·80 per ton, when converted into bronze money,

it would produce £358, or equal to £152·5 per cent. profit. Upon what

ground then can the profit—when new copper at the lower price is

bought—be reduced so low as to 108 per cent., and then fall to £78·70

per cent. on the copper purchased? Were any prosecutions made, or

were men simply told their “services were no longer required?” If the

accounts were investigated by a professional accountant, what amount of

loss in weight—in addition to the loss by dirt which amounted to 0·41

per cent. on each ton melted—would be shown when they were balanced?

Another curious inquiry might be made:—At what rate for labour was

bronze money coined in the Royal Mint after the cessation of the

contract? It might be found to be exorbitant.

Since, however, Lord Kinnaird directed attention to this subject,

Mr. Fremantle has adjusted the return No. 157, as regards bronze, in

a manner similar to, yet differing from, that relating to silver. I

propose to insert copies of these returns, following the arrangement

adopted for those relating to silver; and it will be seen that whereas

Mr. Graham showed a profit of £502,761 11_s._ 11_d._ between the years

1860-68, _without an instance of loss_, Mr. Fremantle not only alters

all the figures relating to the copper purchased, but reduces Mr.

Graham’s profit to £403,376 18_s._ 6_d._ and shows _a loss_ in 1864 to

the extent of £31,896 13_s._ 4_d._; which sum, deducted from £435,273

11_s._ 10_d._, yields the profit Mr. Fremantle is willing to admit.

I am fully aware that “figures may be made to tell anything;” but

until the year 1870 I was not aware that Parliament would permit its

returns to be altered, amended, or adjusted without leave or a word of

explanation. Surely such an occurrence, added to evidence previously

adduced, will cause some independent member to “tackle” even Mr. Lowe

in the House of Commons. Why Mr. Fremantle, in the case of silver,

converts loss into profit, and in that of bronze reduces, apparently

without reason, the amount of profit, should be explained. I have done

my share in calling attention to the facts. It should be pointed out

that the figures relating to 1869 in the following return are inserted,

but not demonstrated, because I wish to mark emphatically the fact

that it is Mr. Graham’s figures alone which are made to perform these

operations, while those of Mr. Fremantle yield a profit of £12,476

4_s._ 6_d._, or at the rate of £137·35 per centum on the copper

purchased.

NO. 157.—RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE THE HOUSE

OF COMMONS, DATED 21ST APRIL, 1869, FOR ACCOUNT “OF ALL GOLD,

SILVER, AND COPPER MONEYS OF THE REALM COINED AT THE MINT, FOR

EACH YEAR FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1859, TO THE 31ST DAY OF

DECEMBER, 1868, &C.,” IN CONTINUATION OF NO. 340, 1857-68. (MR.

AYRTON, PAGE 4.)

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

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

| 1860: | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._|

|Copper | 134 8 0 | | | |

|Bronze | 37,856 0 0 | 9,185 2 11 | 28,805 5 1 | |

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

| 1861 |273,578 13 4 | 96,735 6 8 |176,843 6 8 | |

| 1862 |352,800 0 0 |203,389 0 0 |149,411 0 0 | |

| 1863 |151,648 0 0 | 82,482 0 0 | 69,166 0 0 | |

| 1864 | 18,069 6 8 | 9,660 0 0 | 8,409 6 8 | |

| 1865 | 57,493 6 8 | 31,740 0 0 | 25,753 6 8 | |

| 1866 | 50,624 0 0 | 26,910 0 0 | 23,714 0 0 | |

| 1867 | 33,301 6 8 | 18,960 0 0 | 14,341 6 8 | |

| 1868 | 16,328 0 2 | 10,010 0 0 | 6,318 0 2 | |

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

| |991,833 1 6 |489,071 9 7 |502,761 11 11 | |

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

THOS. GRAHAM, MASTER OF THE MINT.

ROYAL MINT, _19th April, 1869_.

NO. 262.—RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF

COMMONS, DATED 30TH MAY, 1870, IN CONTINUATION OF PARLIAMENTARY

PAPER, NO. 157, OF SESSION 1868-9. (MR. STANSFELD, PAGE 4.)

LEGEND:

(A) = Total Value of Copper Coined.

(B) = Total Amount Paid for Copper Bullion and Old Copper Coin.

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

| | | | | |

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

| 1860: | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._|

|Copper | 134 8 0 | 16,317 10 0 | 21,672 18 0 | |

|Bronze | 37,856 0 0 | | | |

| | | | | |

|1861 | 273,578 13 4 |117,963 10 0 |155,615 3 4 | |

|1862 | 352,800 0 0 |230,784 3 0 |122,015 17 0 | |

|1863 | 151,648 0 0 |136,315 0 0 | 15,333 0 0 | |

|1864 | 18,069 6 8 | 49,966 0 0 | |31,896 13 4|

|1865 | 57,493 6 8 | 16,518 0 0 | 40,975 6 8 | |

|1866 | 50,624 0 0 | 9,273 0 0 | 41,351 0 0 | |

|1867 | 33,301 6 8 | 6,260 0 0 | 27,041 6 8 | |

|1868 | 16,328 0 2 | 5,059 0 0 | 11,269 0 2 | |

|1869 | 20,832 0 0 | 8,355 15 6 | | |

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

| |1,012,665 1 6 |596,811 18 6 |435,273 11 10 |31,896 13 4|

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

C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER OF THE MINT.

ROYAL MINT, _31st May, 1870_.

The foregoing is demonstrative of the processes of coining as conducted

in the Royal Mint, and of the system which prevails in that Department;

I feel it right, however, to add an epitome of the trial of the pyx, a

custom established by the Mint Indenture of 18th Edward III.

I will describe the trial which took place on the 17th of July, 1861,

when the Lord Chancellor Westbury presided in the absence of the Queen,

whom he represented as though she were personally present. It should

have commenced at nine o’clock in the morning, but some delay was

caused by the inability to open the pyx chamber in Westminster Abbey,

owing to the rusting of the locks. The Lord Chancellor was supported

by the following members of the Most Honourable the Privy Council,

Lord Granville, the Duke of Argyll, Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right

Hon. Robert Lowe; Lord Monteagle attending officially with the trial

plates in sealed packages. The jury of twelve men selected by the

Goldsmiths’ Company was then sworn in due form. Lord Monteagle next

declared that the trial plates were standard according to law, and

that they were in the same state, and that the seals were in the same

state, as when deposited in the pyx chamber. The Lord Chancellor then

charged the jury, telling them of the prerogative of the Crown, and

that the Sovereign has a right to issue money bearing her image and

superscription, and that the people take such money in commerce because

it is guaranteed of certain purity, that this guarantee also insures

the receiving of the money by foreign nations; and that these facts

made the attesting of its purity a vital point, that all people might

be assured by their verdict that the money issued is in accordance

with the law, both as to weight and fineness. The Lord Chancellor then

explained the laws relating to the coinage, and that the Master of the

Mint, who was present, would, if their verdict were favourable, be

discharged from further liabilities as to the coin he had made up to

the 31st of December, 1860. After this the Lord Chancellor dwelt upon

the antiquity of the trial of the pyx very briefly, and then explained

that the word _pyx_ is of Greek origin, and means “box”—the box in

which is placed the money to be tested by the jury. He then explained

the law as to the custody of the pyx and of its keys, and passed on to

the latitude allowed for errors as to the standarding of the alloy,

and for the remedy by weight for each pound of manufactured coin;[125]

stating that there had been one adverse verdict found by a jury at

the trial of the pyx, but that the present verdict would doubtless be

favourable to the Master of the Mint, who would then be discharged from

further liabilities by Royal letters-patent. He then adjourned the jury

to the Goldsmiths’ Hall to make the necessary tests and trials of the

coin, desiring that they should afterwards deliver their verdict to

him, either at the House of Lords at six o’clock, or at his residence

at eight o’clock. Lord Monteagle then handed the trial plates to the

foreman of the jury. The trial plates are wide ribbons of gold and of

silver, about as thick as a florin, and indented on the edges. The face

of each plate is stamped with the obverse impression of a sovereign

die; and the date of its manufacture, with the proportion of its alloy,

is engraved on each plate.

[Footnote 125: Specified by the Mint Indenture, which was legalised by

the Act of Parliament 56 Geo. III. cap. 68, sec. ii.]

The jury, having arrived at the Goldsmiths’ Hall, proceeded to count

and weigh the gold and silver moneys of Sir John Herschel, and of

Thomas Graham, Esq.; they then selected a fixed number from the coins

of each Mastership for trial by assay, following a process similar to

that described at pages 10-14. The jury also tested the coined money by

weight, but did not test any individual coin (see new law, pages 70-73)

as to its weight, because the old law only required the coined money to

be within the limits of weight allowed, supposing a fixed number of any

coins to be weighed against a standard pound. The limit, or remedy, was

12 grains on each pound weight troy of gold coin, or about O·2568218

grain on each sovereign, and 24·00 grains on each pound weight troy of

silver coin. After the assay the jury agreed upon a verdict, which was

to the effect that the moneys of both Masterships were found by them to

be within the remedy, both as regards weight and fineness. This verdict

was delivered at eight o’clock P.M., at the Lord Chancellor’s private

residence. The Master of the Mint was present, with his Deputy Master

and other officers, during the trial. The total amount in the pyx at

this trial was £36,417 10_s._ in gold moneys, and £807 4_s._ 3_d._

in silver moneys, and from these the jury selected a total of 60·616

ounces of gold and 71·018 ounces of silver for the assays.

In the same manner the trial of the pyx was held at Westminster on the

19th January, 1866, the only difference consisting in the fact that

at that time £34,927,008 8_s._ 0¼_d._ in coined gold, and £1,556,100

11_s._ 10_d._ in coined silver were submitted to this test.

In an earlier page[126] I have expressed my views as to the

worthlessness of the farce called the _Trial of the Pyx_. While I

studiously avoid altering that expression of opinion, I am sorry

that the _last_ Trial of the Pyx under the ancient law took place

on Tuesday, the 15th day of February, 1870. I could have felt less

regret at the removal of this ancient custom from one law to another,

had there been provision for its better execution; but simply to do

away with the sacred charm of antiquity, and to enact a troublesome

deception, is worse than a blunder; it is, in my antiquarian view, a

crime.

[Footnote 126: See pages 53-56.]

The _Trial of the Pyx_—now, without meaning, as well as a farce—is to

be held, under the Act 33 Victoria, chap. 10, at least once in every

year. Why not daily throughout the year—that its absurdity may be

demonstrated more markedly? Had it been as it should have been, a real

trial of the Pyx, instead of an examination with a foregone conclusion

of certain coins; “at least once in every year,” would have been not

only justifiable but right.