FROM THE RT. HON. ROBERT LOWE TO THE RT. HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.
“_11, Downing St., Whitehall, 4th January, 1869._
“MY DEAR LORD,
“Mr. Ansell, in whom you have interested yourself, is, I
have ascertained, a temporary clerk in the Mint, and the
duration of his employment must accordingly depend on the
necessities of the Department, of which the Master of the
Mint is the only judge. The Treasury could not, therefore,
interfere with Mr. Graham’s discretion in such a case.
“I have, however, felt it my duty to make a particular
inquiry as to the nature of the expectations held out to
Mr. Ansell when his engagement commenced, and which you
have been informed amounted to a promise that he was to get
a permanent employment; but I am informed by the Master of
the Mint—the only person who could, I imagine, have made
such a promise—in the most positive terms, that he never
gave Mr. Ansell, either before or after he went to the Mint,
any encouragement to look for a permanent engagement. Under
these circumstances, whatever the merits of Mr. Ansell may
be, I am afraid I cannot undertake so serious a proceeding
as to interfere with the course which the Master of the Mint
may consider it proper to pursue in this matter.
“Believe me,
“Yours truly,
(Signed) “ROBERT LOWE.
“LORD KINNAIRD.”
On the 6th January, 1869, I, by the advice of your Lordship, took the
opinion of eminent counsel, before whom I laid proofs of my statements.
Counsel advised me to draw up a Memorial, and ask your Lordship to
present it to the Treasury. This I did, with the assistance of a
well-known solicitor, who used infinite pains. The Memorial was as
follows:—
“TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF
HER MAJESTY’S TREASURY.
“THE Humble Memorial of GEORGE FREDERICK ANSELL,
of No. 27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, Analytical Chemist.
“Sheweth as follows:—
“In the month of October, 1856, the Master of the Mint
called upon your Memorialist, and offered to nominate him
to a position in Her Majesty’s Mint, and promised that he
should be promoted if he succeeded in effecting the object
the Master of the Mint had in view, which was to reform
certain abuses which prevailed extensively in the coining
department, in which there was then, and had been for some
time previously, great waste, owing to the carelessness
and peculations of those employed in conducting some of
the processes in that department. There were also great
irregularities and disobedience of orders and disregard
of regulations. All those circumstances combined, caused
considerable loss in the operation of coining, and the
Master of the Mint informed your Memorialist that he
understood it to be the intention of the Government to put
the coinage out to contract, unless it could be conducted
with greater economy in the Mint. Upon the understanding and
in the belief that he was to be promoted when any vacancy
in a higher office should occur, your Memorialist accepted
the offer made to him, and relinquished the professional
pursuits he was engaged in prosecuting, and agreed to devote
the whole of his time and energies to the service required
of him. Consequently upon this, the Master of the Mint, in
a communication dated the 29th of October, 1856, submitted
a proposition for the consideration of your Lordships’
predecessors in the following terms:—
“‘Under this designation I desire to introduce a young man
recommended by scientific or technical information available
in coining, by energy of character, and by tried ability in
the supervision of workmen—a faculty by no means common....
I have been led to propose the name of Mr. George Frederick
Ansell as temporary clerk. Mr. Ansell was educated under
Dr. Hofmann, and acted for some years as his laboratory
assistant. He has since been scientific director in the
Royal Panopticon, in Leicester Square, which was lately
broken up. He appears to be a person of superior education
and ability, and great activity and vigour of character,
and, as I have been assured, has shown much discretion in
the management of both pupils and workmen. Mr. Ansell, if
appointed, would be placed in the rolling room, and have
charge of putting the bars into work.’
“On the 4th of November, 1856, your Lordships’ predecessors
approved of the recommendation of the Master of the Mint,
and on the 12th of November, 1856, your Memorialist entered
upon his service. Before taking active duty, he inquired
of the Master what latitude was allowed in case of any
difference of weight between the bullion given to the men
and the return. The Master replied that he did not know, but
that there had always been considerable loss in the room
your Memorialist was to enter. Your Memorialist assured the
Master that there ought to be no loss, and stated that if he
were supported he would demonstrate it. The Master of the
Mint promised to give your Memorialist full authority, and
also assured him that he might depend upon promotion if he
were able to carry out what he had stated.
“In a very short time after your Memorialist had entered
upon his duties the losses were stopped, the men became
obedient to orders, and all irregularities ceased; but it
was not without exciting considerable ill-will amongst some
of the men and officers employed that your Memorialist
succeeded in accomplishing the ends in view.
“Previously to your Memorialist entering upon his duties,
peculation had been of almost daily occurrence. In
consequence of the various modes by which the bullion was
then weighed, it was almost impossible to detect dishonesty.
In addition to this, the blank coins were so imperfectly
made, that it had always been necessary to reject and return
to the melting-pot quantities ranging from 15 to 35 per cent.
“During the six years, 1851 to 1856, the average loss by
coining, as it was termed, was as follows:—
In gold, £581·420 per million pounds sterling.
In silver, £271·000 per million ounces coined.
In addition to this, a loss was incurred in the melting,
owing to the use of oil in the processes of rolling and
cutting out, and the average of this loss during the same
period was:—
In gold, £356·330 per million pounds sterling.
In silver, £210·750 per million ounces coined.
“During the same period, the average number of blank coins
rejected was:—
In gold, 17·92 per cent.
In silver, 25·00 ”
“The Master of the Mint entrusted solely to your Memorialist
the task of carrying out such reforms, and taking such steps
as your Memorialist considered necessary to put a stop to
the peculations and waste above mentioned.
“The result of such superintendence by your Memorialist
has been that, during the years from 1857 to 1866, instead
of any loss by coining, there has been, on the average, a
positive gain, inasmuch as the gain on gold amounted to
£20 per million sterling, whilst the loss in silver was
reduced from £271 per million ounces, to £55 per million
ounces. During the same period, the average number of blanks
rejected has been, in gold, only 2·07 per cent., and in
silver, only 1·00 per cent. The average loss by melting was
also reduced to the following:—
In gold, £271·900 per million pounds sterling.
In silver, £57·900 per million ounces coined.
“The following tabular statement, compiled from the
official books of the Royal Mint, shews the average loss by
peculation during the six years 1851-1857, and the saving
effected under your Memorialist’s management during the
years 1857-1866:—
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Coining Department. |
+-------+----------+------------+-----------------+---------------+
| | | Absolute | Averages per |Absolute saving|
| Date. | Money | loss by | £1,000,000 | effected by |
| | coined. |peculations.| coined. | stopping |
| | | | | peculation. |
+-------+----------+------------+--------+--------+---------------+
| | | | Loss. | Gain. | |
| | | +--------+--------+ |
| | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ |
|1851-57|40,345,185| 20,030 | 491 | — | — |
|1857-66|50,894,385| Nil. | Nil. | 26 | 27,736 |
+-------+----------+------------+--------+--------+---------------+
+------------------------------------------+
| Melting Department. |
+-------+--------------+-------------------+
| | Average loss | Absolute average |
| Date. | by melting | saving effected |
| |per £1,000,000| by the disuse of |
| | coined. |oil on the scissel.|
+-------+--------------+-------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | £ | £ |
|1851-57| 261 | — |
|1857-66| 233 | 28 |
+-------+--------------+-------------------+
“The result from the above table is that in the period 1851-1857
£40,345,185 in gold was coined at a loss to the Government by
peculations and waste in coining of upwards of £20,000, whilst by the
gains and savings effected by your Memorialist, amounting to £545 in
each £1,000,000 coined, the gain to the Government during the years
1857-1866 amounted to £27,736, and this in the gold alone, and quite
independently of the saving effected in the coining of silver.
“In the year 1857, shortly after the appointment of your Memorialist,
there was a great demand and pressure on the Bank of England for gold
coin, and the endeavour to supply this unusual demand necessitated
great exertion on the part of the Mint. The Master of the Mint placed
the matter entirely under the direction of your Memorialist, who was
the means of producing, without a single instance of loss by peculation
and with an average of only 6 per cent. of rejected blanks, 1,100
journey weights of sovereigns per week, being more by 200 journey
weights than had ever before been obtained. This extra production
undoubtedly contributed largely to meet the demand for gold and relieve
the pressure on the Bank during the monetary crisis of that year.
“In the year 1858, during the temporary absence on leave of the Master
Melter, the Master of the Mint directed your Memorialist to conduct
the melting department, and during such superintendence of it your
Memorialist reduced the then ordinary loss in melting by no less than
33 per cent.
“In the month of August of that year the Master of the Mint recommended
your Memorialist’s salary to be increased from £120 per annum to £220.
“In the year 1859 a large quantity of brittle gold had been brought to
the Mint, and up to that time that kind of gold had been invariably
rejected by the Royal Mint, as well as by the Mints of other countries,
under the impression that it was totally unfit for coining in
consequence of its extreme brittleness. Your Memorialist endeavoured
to turn this gold to account, and succeeded in coining it; and upwards
of a quarter of a million sterling of this coined gold was sent to the
Bank of England, and the coins proved to be so tough that they could
not be broken by the ordinary means. For this service your Memorialist
received from the Master of the Mint a letter expressing his ‘most
grateful thanks,’ and upon his recommendation, in the month of October,
1860, a gratuity of £100 was awarded to your Memorialist by your
Lordships’ predecessors, and in the year 1861 your Memorialist’s
salary was raised from £220 to £250 per annum. Your Memorialist also
originated and developed the plans by which the new bronze money was
coined previous to its issue in 1860. Those plans are still followed,
and in consequence of your Memorialist’s investigations of the
subject, Messrs. Heaton and Messrs. Grenfell were referred to him for
information and assistance by the Master of the Mint.
“In the year 1862 your Memorialist, at the request of the Master of
the Mint, undertook the destruction of all the old copper coinage,
and destroyed from 10 to 16 tons per diem, at the comparatively small
cost of 8_s._ 4_d._ per ton. Before this work was put under your
Memorialist’s charge, scarcely so much as 2 tons per diem had ever been
destroyed; and in the Paris Mint, where a similar process had been in
operation, the cost had never been less than £10 per ton.
“Down to this period, offers had been made to your Memorialist on
several occasions of situations unconnected with the Royal Mint,
at a much higher salary than he was in receipt of there, but your
Memorialist was induced to decline them in consequence of the
assurances of the Master of the Mint that his position there should
be greatly improved. In the month of November, 1863, the office of
Assistant Coiner became vacant. No one, so far as your Memorialist
is aware, had performed so many or such important services in the
establishment as he had done; but his claims were ignored, and the
Master of the Mint, passing over him, appointed his own brother, Mr.
John Graham (who was considerably junior in the service), to the vacant
post.
“Upon the death of the late Mr. Barton, Deputy-Master of the Mint, your
Memorialist applied to the Right Honourable the then First Lord for
promotion, but he appointed Mr. Fremantle, his private secretary, to
Mr. Barton’s office, and no other change or promotion was made.
“On the 28th of September, 1868, your Memorialist received his
dismissal from the service, in the following letter from the Master of
the Mint—
‘_Royal Mint, 28th September, 1868._
‘DEAR SIR,
‘I regret to have to inform you that it is not in my power
to continue your present engagement as an extra officer in
the coining department while the Mint is only so partially
occupied as it has been for some time past. Your assistance
will not therefore be required beyond the 31st of December
next.
‘I remain,
‘Faithfully yours,
‘THO. GRAHAM.
‘G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.’
“Notwithstanding the intimation conveyed by the above letter that
your Memorialist’s services were no longer required in consequence of
the coining department being only partially occupied, it is the fact
that another gentleman, who was an extra clerk in the bronze store
department, and considerably your Memorialist’s junior (but who is
private secretary to Mr. John Graham, the brother of the Master), has
been appointed to the same post as your Memorialist held; and it is
also the fact that the Mint is now executing a new coinage of about
£5,000,000 of gold, and your Memorialist believes that it will be
found, on investigation, that losses have again occurred, upon this
and the last preceding coinage, which was not superintended by your
Memorialist.
“Upon a reference to the communications to the Treasury from the Master
of the Mint, under the dates of
29th October, 1856,
6th August, 1857,
17th August, 1858,
7th and 8th July, 1860,
it will be seen that your Memorialist’s services have been referred
to by the Master of the Mint in terms of high approbation, and your
Memorialist can confidently assert that his dismissal has not been
owing to any want of efficiency or attention to the public service on
his part; and, on the other hand, others who have less effectually
served the public interest, and have been junior to your Memorialist in
the service, have been promoted over his head. The Master of the Mint
at one time offered to recommend your Memorialist to an appointment in
the Mint at Hong Kong; but the climate would have been unsuitable to
your Memorialist and his family, and he was compelled to decline it.
“Your Memorialist has spent twelve of the best years of his life in the
public service at an insignificant salary, and has effected savings to
the public to the amount of £35,000 and upwards in the gold coinage
alone, besides many other savings in other branches of his department,
and has now been dismissed without, as he humbly submits, any adequate
reason at three months’ notice (which your Memorialist is advised
is insufficient according to the usual course of law) and without
compensation of any kind.
“Your Memorialist therefore humbly prays your Lordships to
cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances stated by
your Memorialist, and his special services in connection
with the Royal Mint, and that your Lordships will be
pleased to continue his services in some other department
in which they may be made available, or to award some
compensation to him in consideration of the considerable
sums he has been the means of saving to the public during
the course of his employment at the Royal Mint, and of his
abrupt dismissal by the Master without any just cause.
“GEORGE F. ANSELL.
“_10th February, 1869._”
On the 19th February, your Lordship enclosed to me the following
letter:—
FROM C. RIVERS WILSON, ESQ., TO THE HON. A. KINNAIRD, M.P.
“_11, Downing Street, Whitehall, 15th February, 1869._
“DEAR SIR,
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received the Memorial
from Mr. Ansell, forwarded in your letter of Saturday,
and has caused it at once to be laid before the Board of
Treasury, in compliance with the wish expressed by Lord
Kinnaird.
“I am, dear Sir,
“Yours faithfully,
(Signed) “C. RIVERS WILSON.
“HON. ARTHUR KINNAIRD, M.P.”
On the 22nd February, 1869, Mr. John Graham died, thus leaving the
office of Chief Coiner vacant. I immediately informed your Lordship
of this unexpected event, and you, on the 23rd, wrote to the Hon. A.
Kinnaird, asking that gentleman to go immediately and see Mr. Lowe,
and to take him a copy of my book of testimonials; and on the 24th
your Lordship wrote to the Hon. A. Kinnaird, asking him to see Mr.
Gladstone, in whose gift the office of Chief Coiner is. On the 27th
February, 1869, a friend suggested that I should “ask Lord Kinnaird to
mediate between Mr. Graham and myself.” Your Lordship permitted me to
make that suggestion, and wrote as follows:—
THE RT. HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.,
TO THOMAS GRAHAM, ESQ., F.R.S., D.C.L.
“_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., March 1st, 1869._
“SIR,
“I do not know whether you are aware that Mr. G. F. Ansell,
by my advice, has presented a Memorial to the Lords of the
Treasury, praying for compensation for his dismissal from
the Mint.
“I considered the case so hard that a gentleman who had
served the country for about twelve years, ably and
efficiently, as shown by letters from the Treasury and from
yourself, should be dismissed on three months’ notice,
that I resolved to bring this case before Parliament, but
before doing so I thought it best that Mr. Ansell should
memorialise the Treasury, stating his case and past services.
“Since the Memorial was sent in, I have heard of the loss
you have sustained, and consequently have applied for the
appointment for Mr. Ansell to the office lately filled by
your brother.
“I think it right you should know this, and I am not
without hopes that my recommendation may meet with your
concurrence, as though I am aware that you had at one
time some difference with Mr. Ansell, yet he has at the
same time told me of many kindnesses he has received from
you—shown also on a late occasion, when you gave him a
very good testimonial on his being a candidate for a Gas
Inspectorship, which proves the high opinion you have of Mr.
Ansell’s qualifications.
“He has assured me that, should he get the appointment, he
will act most cordially with you, and be most anxious to
forget all that is past.
“I am prepared, on hearing from you that you concur in Mr.
Ansell’s appointment, to write to Mr. R. Lowe to tell him
that I wish the Memorial withdrawn.
“Your obedient servant,
(Signed) “KINNAIRD.
“T. GRAHAM, ESQ., F.R.S., D.C.L.,
“Master of the Royal Mint, London.”
Envelope marked “Private,”
FROM T. GRAHAM, ESQ., F.R.S., D.C.L., TO
THE RT. HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.
“_4, Gordon Square, 3rd March, 1869._
“MY LORD,
“On returning from Scotland I find your letter of the 1st
instant, the receipt of which I beg to acknowledge.
“I beg to remain, my Lord,
“Your Lordship’s most obedient servant,
(Signed) “THO. GRAHAM.
“THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD.”
On the 6th March, 1869, your Lordship wrote me to the effect that Mr.
Lowe had stated that he “still entertained a belief that Mr. Ansell was
never on the staff of the Mint, and he cannot force a supernumerary on
Mr. Graham, but he HAS SENT THE MEMORIAL TO MR. GRAHAM TO ANSWER.” I
feel that the Right Hon. Robert Lowe thus committed a singular act of
injustice to me. Those who will read the Memorial cannot but be struck
with the fact that my sole complaint is against Mr. Thomas Graham,
yet Mr. Lowe remits the case to the accused for _his_ decision. Such
an act is a remarkable comment on the promise of the Government _that
those who would faithfully do their duty, irrespective of their nominal
position, should be rewarded_.
This injustice induced your Lordship to take further steps, and you
sent me the following letter:—
FROM THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE TO
HON. A. KINNAIRD, M.P.
“_March 5th, 1869._
“MY DEAR KINNAIRD,
“I am not sure whether the arrangements to be made at the
Mint will place any vacancy at my disposal, but if they
do I will carefully consider the subject of your letter
respecting Mr. Ansell.
“Ever yours sincerely,
(Signed) “W. E. GLADSTONE.
“THE HON. A. KINNAIRD.”
On the receipt of this letter your Lordship directed me to send a copy
of my “Treatise on Coining” to Mr. A. West for Mr. Gladstone. Up to
this date the case had been urged upon Mr. Gladstone, not only by your
Lordship, but in addition by five Cabinet Ministers and five members of
the House of Commons; yet there was, as in the case of Mr. Disraeli,
some mysterious cause why I was defeated, and on the 27th of March,
1869, I received the following:—
FROM THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY TO G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.
(_No. 3727, 24th March_).
“_Treasury Chambers, 27th March, 1869._
“SIR,
“In reply to your Memorial of the 10th of February last,
I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s
Treasury to acquaint you that my Lords have made inquiry
into the circumstances which led to the cessation of your
employment as a temporary clerk at the Royal Mint, and they
do not find that they are such as in their opinion would
justify them in awarding you any compensation in consequence
thereof.
“I am further desired to state that your removal from the
service was entirely within the discretion of the Master of
the Mint, who distinctly denies ever having held out to you
any expectation of promotion or of permanent employment; and
that your statements as to the value of your services at the
Mint are not corroborated by Mr. Graham.
“In conclusion, I am desired to add, with regard to your
application that your services may be continued in some
other department, that my Lords have no appointment at their
disposal to which they can nominate you.
“I am, Sir,
“Your obedient servant,
(Signed) “WILLIAM LAW,”
“GEORGE F. ANSELL, ESQ.,
“27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, W.C.” “Exᵃᵈ.
Whereupon your Lordship took steps, which I will explain presently;
but I beg first to append a few extracts from my diary, written day
by day at a time when, had my confidence in Mr. Graham been shaken, I
could have induced him to make a written agreement. I instead placed
in him so profound a confidence that I placed my future, _as he knew_,
entirely in his keeping.
“_9th March, 1858._
“I expressed an opinion that in the event of the Master being ill, or
seeing fit to resign, I should be summarily dismissed the Mint, and
that the —— and —— would come into power. I also related the grounds
for my opinion, and the Master said that ‘the Treasury were too much
awake to all affairs to admit of my dismissal or removal, or of such
a change at any time under any circumstances; and that, beside, Mr.
Sterry was now just preparing his last Report of the waste per quarter,
and which would effectually close —— and ——’s chance.’”
“_9th July, 1858._
“I showed the Master, and he read Mr. Halder Wood’s letter. I sought
his advice, and he advised me to remain at the Mint, promising that,
so soon as Mr. Brande or Mr. Buckle died, I should be placed in their
position, for the Treasury would not make a place for me. I wrote this
to Mr. Wood, who soon replied, offering me a place which was next to
himself, and advising me ‘not to trust Graham’s promises.’”
“_September 2nd, 1857._
“A note from Mr. F. Versmann, declining a position which I had placed
at his disposal under these circumstances. Mr. Corcoran offered to
introduce me to Mr. Payne, who subsequently offered to engage me on the
following terms: I was to attend three days a week at Farnham, where
I was to have a residence and £250 a year. The other three days I was
at perfect liberty to use and to spend in London, in no way tied to
Mr. Payne. I consulted Mr. Graham. He promised most faithfully that I
should be ‘above all,’ and advised me to decline Mr. Payne’s offer. I
did decline it, and to prove to Mr. Graham that the offer was _bona
fide_, I handed to him Mr. Payne’s letter, with a request that he would
recommend a fit person, and I would introduce him. Mr. Graham gave
the letter to Mr. Versmann, who in his note says he declines because
‘I am sorry indeed that Mr. Payne finds it necessary for the chemist
to reside on the spot; but, after all, I am sure I am right in not
giving up my chances in London.’ Mr. Corcoran has at this day a perfect
recollection of the whole matter, and writes me ‘I believe you would
have accepted, but you had a prospect of a certain position in the
Royal Mint.’”
“_October 5th, 1859._
“In a conversation about my position, which had arisen from the
opposition offered to me, the Master said, ‘Yes, that is the
difficulty, you see the Treasury will not give you a position while we
have so much old lumber in the way of officers who do nothing.... And
in truth I will tell you I had hoped that the Act of last session would
have rendered retirement at sixty-five compulsory, and then I would
have placed you in a far higher position in the coining department; but
that clause was unwisely withdrawn, and here I am, still encumbered
by people utterly useless.’ I said, ‘Is it probable that I shall have
to wait for my promotion till the death or retirement of one of my
so-called ‘superior officers,’ or shall I now stand a chance of a more
immediate position of safety?’ He replied with great earnestness, ‘It
is a year since anything was done for you, so I will do something for
you before the end of early winter, and you stand a far better chance
now that Sir Charles Trevelyan is gone from the Treasury, for he always
stood in your way, because his own nominations had turned out so very
disastrously to this place; but I will promise you I will set you
firmly directly the men return to London—directly the Ministers are in
town.’”
_22nd April, 1869._
Being determined to find the reason why I failed to be appointed, you,
as stated in your Lordship’s letter, called on Mr. Graham, at the Mint.
Mr. Graham spoke of his desire to serve Mr. Ansell, and offered “to
appoint him to the position from which Mr. C. W. Goodwin was to be
retired with an increased salary.”
I had in writing begged your Lordship to allow me to decline this
offer, because I saw through the malevolent malice which induced it,
and enclosed a statement with extracts from my diary.
Four days later, it appears that your Lordship called again on Mr.
Thomas Graham, in the Mint, where he was in consultation with Dr. Lyon
Playfair, M.P., and Mr. C. W. Fremantle, when you, as stated in your
letter, read and heard read Mr. Graham’s letter to the Treasury, and
your Lordship wrote to Mr. Lowe in relation to this interview with Mr.
Graham, and sent me Mr. Lowe’s reply.
“_Downing Street, Whitehall, April 29th, 1869._
“DEAR LORD KINNAIRD,
“Had Mr. Graham consulted me, I should have advised him not
to produce any documents to you and Dr. Lyon Playfair, for
the simple reason that I have already decided the case, and
that it ought not to be opened without my consent. That
consent I feel myself bound to withhold. I cannot permit
any one in this office to act as a Court of Appeal on what
I have decided. I have already given to your Lordship such
explanations as the case seemed to require, and I have
nothing to add to it.
“I am, my lord,
“Faithfully yours,
(Signed) “ROBERT LOWE.
“THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD.”
THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., TO
THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOWE.
“_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., May 4th, 1869._
“DEAR MR. LOWE,
“The only explanation in re Ansell which I received from
you, was that Mr. Ansell’s Memorial, which complained of Mr.
Graham’s conduct, had been remitted to that gentleman for an
answer, and that, after receiving it, you considered further
inquiry was unnecessary.
“I then asked to see the answer, and was refused, though, at
the same time you _assured me_ that it did not reflect
in the least on Mr. Ansell’s character. When I did see Mr.
Graham’s answer, I was struck with the animus which pervaded
its tone, and can hardly understand how such a difference
‘between us’ can exist as to what _does_ and _does
not_ reflect on a man’s character. That the impression
conveyed to my mind by the document is the natural one,
is corroborated by the declaration of Dr. Lyon Playfair
on reading it; for he declared, ‘most strongly, that if
published, it would prevent Mr. Ansell obtaining, not only
any official, but any other employment.’ And certainly,
if the statements therein be true, such a result would be
deserved; however, the document bears on the face of it
so manifest a perversion of facts, and exhibits such a
malevolent feeling towards Mr. Ansell on the part of Mr.
Graham, on _whose word alone_ you have ‘decided the
case,’ that I am satisfied that the publication of this
document would rather tell in Mr. Ansell’s favour than
otherwise. I pointed out to you that the appointment by Mr.
Graham of his brother, whose unfortunate habits were well
known, to a position of great responsibility in the Mint,
and the peculations and losses which, by Mr. Graham’s own
admission, had taken place, demanded a special inquiry into
the management, and however much I might wish to screen a
man of Mr. Graham’s scientific acquirements, I do not feel
inclined to follow your advice and ‘ask Mr. Gladstone to
give Mr. Ansell another appointment,’ instead of exposing
the mismanagement of the Mint, and I cannot understand how,
if you believe Mr. Graham’s answer to be reliable, you could
recommend me to take such a course.
“Yours faithfully,
(Signed) “KINNAIRD.
“THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOWE, Downing Street.”
THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., TO
THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE.
“_Rossie Priory, Inchture, N.B., May 4th, 1869._
“DEAR MR. GLADSTONE,
“Since I saw you on the subject of Mr. Ansell’s appointment
to the vacant office at the Mint, I have seen Mr. Graham’s
answer to Mr. Ansell’s Memorial, and I earnestly hope that
you will not think of filling up the vacant office without a
full inquiry into the management of that Department, which
I consider is imperatively called for, and I do not think
that in making that appointment you would be justified in
being guided by the advice of the Master of the Mint, who
formerly appointed to that office his brother, whose drunken
habits were so notorious as to render him quite unfit to be
continued in such a charge.
“I see no reason to doubt Mr. Ansell’s statements that great
peculations did take place at the Mint, as well as waste
in coining. This is admitted by the Master himself, and
clearly brought out in the Memorial of Mr. Ansell, who was
employed for twelve years as supernumerary, and received
an acknowledgment more than once from the Treasury in
consequence of the saving he had effected. Mr. Graham, it is
true, denies the facts, and endeavours to blast Mr. Ansell’s
character, and thus to throw discredit on the evidence Mr.
Ansell could give.
“Mr. Graham further states in his answer that Mr. Ansell
was dismissed on the complaint of his brother, while the
letter of dismissal following immediately on Mr. Ansell’s
application to Mr. Disraeli to be put on the permanent staff
bears, that it was in consequence of the ‘coining department
being so partially occupied,’ though at the same time a new
coinage had been ordered.
“Mr. Graham’s answer bears on the face of it such a
perversion of facts that it appears to me an inquiry is
absolutely necessary, and I hope you will not oppose a
Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the management of the
Mint, unless some other mode of inquiry is adopted.
“Believe me,
“Yours faithfully,
(Signed) “KINNAIRD.
“THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE.”
Your Lordship will perhaps allow me to bring to your remembrance that
Mr. Thomas Graham died on the 16th of September, 1869, many months
after you had made great exertions in my favour. This is the more
necessary because some have thought that Mr. Graham was not aware of
my charges against him, whereas he had a full knowledge of all that
was passing, and his removal made it more difficult for me to prove
my statements or to obtain justice. It had been, I believe, your
Lordship’s intention to allow “my case,” as it has been called, to
go into abeyance till, on the occasion of your motion in the House
of Lords for a Committee to inquire into the management of the Mint,
others gratuitously attacked me, instead of replying to your Lordship
exact statements made on the 18th July, 1870, when you once more
brought the subject of the Mint before the House of Lords. As that
debate became of personal interest to myself, I beg to quote your
Lordship’s concluding speech.
“LORD KINNAIRD: I am quite ready, as far as Professor Graham is
concerned, to acquit him individually and personally from anything
improper; all I have to say with regard to Professor Graham is that
he was not a fit person for the office, as he continued the jobbery
which he found in existence, and which had prevailed there ever since
the Mint was a Government office. He appointed his own brother, a
calico printer, to an office for which he was entirely unfit, not
only on the ground of general incompetence, but from his well-known
habits of intemperance. I am quite ready to admit that the bulk of the
information I possess upon the subject is obtained from Mr. Ansell,
who was for many years employed by the Master of the Mint, and who, as
the returns show, succeeded in making even the gold coinage a paying
department, as it should be, instead of a losing department, as it
is; but my statements are also founded on, and confirmed by, returns
presented to both Houses of Parliament. Mr. Ansell also put a stop to
peculation, and made himself very unpopular among the officials in
consequence. Mr. Ansell gave up very valuable appointments in order to
fulfil his duties at the Mint, under the repeated promise of promotion
when a vacancy should occur; and I am afraid I am responsible for
what is called his dismissal, for, when I applied to the late Prime
Minister for his promotion, Mr. Graham, who, in common with the other
officials, feared an exposure from Mr. Ansell’s promotion, wrote him a
letter of dismissal as follows:—
‘_Royal Mint, September 28, 1868._
‘DEAR SIR,
‘I regret to have to inform you that it is not in my power
to continue your present engagement as an extra officer in
the coining department, while the Mint is only so partially
occupied as it has been for some time past. Your assistance
will not, therefore, be required beyond the 31st of December
next.
‘I remain, faithfully yours,
‘THO. GRAHAM.
‘G. F. ANSELL, ESQ.’
“After this dismissal the profit ceased and the loss recurred. I
accordingly applied to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer for an inquiry, but I was treated rather summarily, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said he deprecated any inquiry. Only two
or three months, however, after giving him that notice, and while he
was still engaged in the Mint, Mr. Graham warmly recommended him for
the office of Gas Inspector to the Corporation of London, stating
that he was a well-informed practical chemist, and ‘a man of tried
integrity’—‘a man of _tried integrity_!’ Now, within three months after
the Master of the Mint dismissed this officer—who, as the returns will
show, had saved the country some thousands—he writes this testimonial:—
‘I beg to express the very favourable opinion which I
entertain of Mr. G. F. Ansell’s qualifications for the
office of Inspector of Gas to the Corporation of London. Mr.
Ansell is a well-informed practical chemist, and has given
much attention for several years to gas. He is the inventor
of an ingenious instrument for indicating the presence of
fire-damp in the atmosphere of mines, which is much admired
by scientific and practical men. Mr. Ansell is also a man
of tried integrity and great energy. From what I have seen
of him at the Mint I would say that he would devote himself
entirely and conscientiously to the work of the new office,
if appointed.’
“THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Who signed that letter?
“LORD KINNAIRD: Thomas Graham. And, notwithstanding this high testimony
to the value of his services, this man was dismissed because he knew
too much of what was going on in the Mint. I challenge the Mint
authorities to prove a single statement in his book to be false. If
they can, why do they not contradict him? They dare not. Mr. Ansell’s
book has been some months before the public, and if the Mint could
have challenged his statements, which are very damaging, they would
certainly have done so. I challenge contradiction. I am very glad the
noble Lord has given me the opportunity of making this statement with
regard to Mr. Graham, a talented man, but quite unable to cope with the
clever men about him, unaided by Mr. Ansell. Now that Mr. Ansell has
been dismissed, you see what is the result. The noble Lord has told
your Lordships of reforms which have been made at the Mint; but I can
assure him I expect little good to result from those reforms, for the
very men who then had charge of these departments, and who permitted
the peculations and mismanagement which Mr. Ansell stopped, are the
men who are now promoted to the chief management of the operative
departments of the Mint. I hope, therefore, the matter will not be
allowed to drop, for I am sure there is no department in this or any
other country more corrupt than the Mint.”
“Motion (by leave of the House) _withdrawn_.”—
(_House of Lords, Monday 18th July, 1870._ Hansard’s Report)
I beg to express my great obligation to your Lordship for
so complete a determination to obtain justice for me as
you have exhibited, and which has required not only labour
given ungrudgingly, but time, which I am sure would have
been of inestimable value to others. My power to thank is
weak, but I am entirely grateful. I am also obliged to your
Lordship for sending me a copy of Hansard’s Report, which
I, in accordance with your Lordship’s permission, print
elsewhere, but reserve its conclusion as a fitting finish
to this statement, which I submit as a true epitome of my
unfortunate—for myself—connection with the Royal Mint.
I have the honour to remain,
My Lord,
Most gratefully your Lordship’s obedient and obliged servant,
GEORGE F. ANSELL.
THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T., F.R.G.S.
Lord-Lieutenant of Perthshire, &c., &c., &c.