THE ROYAL MINT. (continued 4)

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

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

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

” 1866 ” 1867 175838·208 684,670 0 5

” 1867 ” 1868 127485·816 496,397 17 11

” 1868 ” 1869 1270778·550 4,948,093 19 7

Date. Amount of Waste. Value of Waste. Value of Sweep recovered.

Ounces. £ s. d. £ s. d.

Nov. 1851 to March 1852 91·456 356 2 2 133 0 2

April 1852 to March 1853 1332·474 5,188 6 5 708 10 0

” 1853 ” 1854 728·088 2,834 19 11 709 9 8¼

” 1854 ” 1855 223·811 871 9 3 209 2 4¾

” 1855 ” 1856 867·277 3,376 19 2 805 5 4¾

” 1856 ” 1857 515·298 2,006 8 10 469 1 1¾

” 1857 ” 1858 275·452 1,072 10 10 262 18 5¾

” 1858 ” 1859 248·804 968 15 7 281 2 1½

” 1859 ” 1860 259·069 1,008 15 0 240 16 3

” 1860 ” 1861 817·668 3,183 15 11 729 19 10½

” 1861 ” 1862

” 1862 ” 1863 636·395 2,477 19 3 590 2 7

” 1863 ” 1864 629·815 2,452 6 10 507 11 0

” 1864 ” 1865 464·080 1,807 0 3 509 10 0

” 1865 ” 1866 585·622 2,280 5 4 535 5 0

” 1866 ” 1867 37·440 145 15 8 Nil.

” 1867 ” 1868 54·460 212 1 0 71 10 6

” 1868 ” 1869 701·084 2,729 16 11 788 7 4

Date. Value of Waste. per £1,000,000. Value of Sweep per £1,000,000.

£ s. d. £ s. d.

Nov. 1851 to March 1852 259 18 10 97 1 9

April 1852 to March 1853 435 13 8 59 9 11

” 1853 ” 1854 267 1 9 66 16 10

” 1854 ” 1855 275 11 1 66 2 6

” 1855 ” 1856 401 16 4 95 16 4

” 1856 ” 1857 410 13 10 96 0 3

” 1857 ” 1858 219 4 1 53 14 8

” 1858 ” 1859 337 19 7 80 12 6

” 1859 ” 1860 264 6 8 63 2 0

” 1860 ” 1861 297 10 1 68 11 9

” 1861 ” 1862

” 1862 ” 1863 270 12 9 64 9 0

” 1863 ” 1864 348 9 6 72 2 5

” 1864 ” 1865 238 1 2 67 2 5

” 1865 ” 1866 466 2 6 109 8 2

” 1866 ” 1867 212 18 6 Nil.

” 1867 ” 1868 427 2 6 144 1 9

” 1868 ” 1869 551 13 4 159 6 6

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

ROYAL MINT, _2nd March_, 1870.

In November, 1863, Mr. John Graham was appointed; but he did not interfere in the coining department until about March, 1864. The disastrous effects of his mismanagement now became apparent, and the losses have again made, it is to be feared, an habitual appearance. In the first year of his efforts, the loss per million⁠[64] became £22 6s. 2d., the sweep selling for £38 18s. 6d., giving a gain of £16 12s. 4d. only; in the next year, a gain of £25 14s. 7d.; and it was now determined, notwithstanding a written protest, that the sweep and scrap were not worth collecting, so they were lost. The next two years exhibit absolute losses of £28 12s. 10d. and £30 12s. 8½d. per million respectively, while in September, 1868, a loss of 19·873 ounces is recorded as a balance; yet it is a fact that no gold was ever produced to satisfy this balance, so that in my opinion it will be correct to state that the loss is at the rate of £70 14s. 5¾d. on each million coined. Unless upon the existence of such facts, it is difficult to understand why the Mint authorities should not publish annually an official statement of the loss or gain made by coining gold and silver, as well as the amount coined; but, that the whole details may be complete, it is now necessary to enter upon the discussion of the melting-house accounts. The table on p. 96 exhibits the operations of that department upon the same gold as that just discussed. If, as in the case of the table relating to the coining department, the total loss between November, 1851, and March, 1857, be reduced by the value of the sweep sold, it will appear to be, on gold, £11,599·825, and this divided by £40,345,185·450, the total sum coined, will give an average loss of £280 7s. 8¾d. per million coined, when, as was admittedly the case, the gold scissel was saturated to dropping with oil. Let us now see if this loss be increased by the reduction of the amount of oil which was formerly sent to the melter on the scissel.

When in 1857-58 the loss by coining was put a stop to, and a gain was produced, it was roundly asserted that the melter’s account would show that the loss, so far from being stopped, had only been transferred from one department to another; but by examining the table now under discussion, it will be seen that when, in 1857-58,⁠[65] the gain of £25 4s. 10½d. occurred in the coining department, so far from there being a CORRESPONDING LOSS in the melting-house, that which had averaged £280 7s. 8¼d., fell to £165 9s. 4¾d.,—as will be seen by deducting the sweep sold from the loss recorded in the year 1857-58. When, in the next year, the gain by coining rose to £50 13s., the melter’s loss did not reach its former average amount, for in that year, when he had as large an amount of brittle gold to contend with as in 1858, his loss was £257 7s. 0¾d.,⁠[66] or still below the old average; whereas, if from this period the loss be estimated, it will be found that its average is £212 6s. 1d. per million coined, as against £280 7s. 8¼d., or a clear saving of £68 1s. 7d. effected by lessening the amount of oil on the scissel (explained at page 87); and this amount may fairly be added to the total sum saved per million coined, which will be for coining £494, for melting £68 1s. 7d., making together £562 1s. 7d. on each million coined. That the loss by melting should reach the extravagant sum of £212 per million coined—Mr. Mathison, the contractor under the Company of Moneyers, made an average loss of £112 only—can hardly be maintained even in the Royal Mint; that it does occur is indisputable. The cause for it is not far to seek; yet it is hardly within my scope in this place to point out the means by which it should be reduced to within the limit of £100, which is demonstrably the maximum limit it should be permitted to reach. This, then, is the state of affairs as regards loss by the coining of gold.

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

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

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

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

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

Average Rate for Each Million Coined.

Date. Financial Year. Ultimate Loss by Coining £1,000,000 Gold. Ultimate Gain by Coining £1,000,000 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. Financial Year. Ultimate Loss by Melting Ingots, &c. for £1,000,000 Gold. Ultimate Loss by both Operations.

£ 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 Waste occurred. Amount of Cheque. Rate of Waste per Million.

£ s. d. £ s. d.

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

” August 26th From 1st April to 30th June 1852 1,926 10 5 951 0 0

” December 6th From 1st July to 30th September 1852 2,051 16 9 882 0 0

1853, June 17th From 1st October to 31st December 1852 3,209 8 2 995 0 0

” July 8th From 1st January to 31st March 1853 5,270 1 3 1,132 0 0

” September 30th From 1st April to 30th June 1853 4,564 0 0 1,026 0 0

” December 30th From 1st July to 30th September 1853 1,147 5 2 1,112 0 0

1854, August 30th From 1st October 1853 to 30th June 1854 4,583 0 0 878 0 0

1856, May 2nd From 1st July 1854 to 31st December 1855 8,685 14 3 895 0 0

1857, June 12th From 1st January 1856 to 30th May 1857 5,265 0 0 803 0 0

1858, May 5th From 1st June 1857 to 31st March 1858 1,110 14 7 230 0 0

1860, March 12th From 1st April 1858 to 30th June 1859 1,282 16 7 360 0 0

” June 27th From 1st July 1859 to 31st March 1860 1,084 6 3 347 0 0

1862, August 29th From 1st April 1860 to 31st August 1862 4,272 11 7 389 0 0

1863, March 30th From 1st September 1862 to 31st December 1862 1,766 14 8 350 0 0

” June 3rd From 1st January to 31st March 1863 606 19 4 161 0 0

1864, September 6th From 1st April 1863 to 31st July 1864 2,584 11 11 281 0 0

1865, March 29th From 1st August 1864 to 31st December 1864 1,320 16 9 419 0 0

” October 19th From 1st January to 30th September 1865 438 6 3 169 0 0

1866, July 4th From 1st October 1865 to 30th June 1866 2,633 13 2 485 0 0

1867, December 12th From 1st July 1866 to 30th November 1867 227 5 20 457 0 0

1869, November 30th⁠[69] From 1st December 1867 to 30th November 1869 4,162 1 0 461 0 0

£ 59,084 1 4

C. W. FREMANTLE, Deputy-Master and Comptroller.

Royal Mint, 2nd March, 1870.

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 17s. 9d. (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 9s. 5d., while in that year a gain was made by coining to the extent of £25 4s. 10d.⁠[72] This gain being deducted from the loss by melting, leaves a final loss of £140 4s. 7d., 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 17s. 9d.,⁠[73] the loss by melting was £392 6s. 10d., 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.

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 4s. 7d. (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 4s. 7d. 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 4s. 7d. 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 1s. 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 4d. 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 1s. 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.

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.

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 12s. 1¾d. and the loss at 3·357 ounces, or at the rate of £30 12s. 8¼d. on the million coined, the return states the money coined at £496,397 17s. 11d.; and leaving unaltered the amount of loss, shows it to be at the rate of £26 6s. 7d. 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.

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.

Remedy in Parts of a Grain.

0·30 Grain. 0·25 Grain. 0·24 Grain. 0·23 Grain. 0·22 Grain. 0·21 Grain. 0·20 Grain.

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

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

” ” 5·10 10·50 ... ... ... ... 19·66

These considerations had no weight when the Coinage Bill was being hurriedly passed—at late hours, so as to avoid discussion on its clauses—by the House of Commons. It in due course reached the House of Lords, where Lord Kinnaird moved a clause—which would have been greatly to the benefit of the Mint had it been adopted—to the effect that the remedy on the individual piece should be 0·2568 grain; that is—the remedy from the old scale under the Mint Indenture proportioned to one coin. This Coinage Bill introduced a new principle, and it would have been wise had it given the Mint every chance of success. Instead, however, of proceeding cautiously, his lordship’s motion was rejected and the remedy declared fixed at 0·2000 grain, thus necessitating the use of a working remedy of 0·1700 grain, or perhaps 0·1500 grain, and the consequent rejection for re-melting of “only 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.

Date. Sovereign Blanks. Half- Sovereign Blanks. By Filing Metal from the Edges of the Heavy Blanks they were reduced to the Standard Weight when the original rate per cent. was reduced to, on Sovereigns coined (that is, weighed after the Coin was struck, so the heavy were melted).

Sovereigns. Half- Sovereigns.

Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent.

1855 21·49 32·29 ... ... ...

1856 14·50 20·04 ... ... ...

1857 7·44 16·13 ... ... ...

1858 4·50 11·16 ... ... ...

1859 5·67 8·86 4·14 5·52 ...

1860 3·62 10·08 1·69 4·65 ...

1861 5·75 ... 3·36 ... ...

” 21·43 ... 12·22 ... ...

” 16·07 ... 6·68 ... ...

1862 9·48 17·06 3·37 11·53 ...

1863 9·68 ... 4·25 ... ...

” 18·76 18·08 ... 11·69 ...

” 18·76 ... 6·76 ... ...

” ... 28·79 ... 12·86 ...

1864 15·15 28·27 5·07 12·79 ...

” ... ... ... ... 5·74

1865 ... ... ... ... 6·61

1866 ... ... ... ... 9·87

1867 ... ... ... ... ...

1868 ... ... ... ... 17·82

Date. Half-Sovereigns coined (that is, weighed after the Coin was struck, so the heavy were melted). Remedies employed on Sovereigns on each piece. Remedies employed on Half-Sovereigns on each piece.

Per Cent. Parts of a Grain. Parts of a Grain.

1855 ... ... ... ... 0·30 ... 0·15

1856 ... ... ... ... 0·30 ... 0·15

1857 ... ... ... ... 0·30 ... 0·15

1858 ... ... ... ... 0·30 ... 0·15

1859 ... ... ... ... 0·30 ... 0·15

1860 ... ... ... ... 0·30 ... 0·15

1861 ... ... ... ... 0·30 ... ...

” ... ... 0.20 ... ... ... ...

” ... ... ... 0·24 ... ... ...

1862 ... ... ... 0·24 ... 0·12 ...

1863 ... ... ... 0·24 ... ... ...

” ... ... ... ... ... 0·12 ...

” ... ... ... 0·24 ... ... ...

” ... ... ... 0·24 ... 0·12 ...

1864 ... ... ... 0·24 ... 0·12 ...

” 14·76 ... ... 0·24 ... 0·12 ...

1865 12·60 ... ... 0·24 ... 0·12 ...

1866 15·64 ... ... 0·24 ... 0·12 ...

1867 20·28 ... ... ... ... 0·12 ...

1868 ... 0·15 ... ... ... ... ...

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

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

Statement showing the rate per centum of Mixed Coin from Rough Bars of Gold, and the rate per centum of Sovereigns and Half Sovereigns from those respective Bars. The Brittle Bars and Stopped Pots are deducted.

Coinage conducted between the Periods:— Mixed Bars, “Rough.” Mixed Coin. Rate per cent. on Mixed Bars.

Ounces. Ounces.

November 1856 to April 1857 1,103,403 456,575 41·37

October 1857 to March 1858 2,280,033 1,238,171 54·24

November 1858 to June 1859 1,955,961 915,530 46·80

January 1860 to March 1860 1,460,209 802,847 54·28

January 1861 to April 1861 1,707,098 862,329 50·51

June 1861 to March 1862 4,448,353 1,874,885 42·14

May 1862 to March 1863 4,534,377 2,354,805 51·93

October 1863 to June 1864 4,946,697 2,323,238 46·96

October 1864 to December 1864 1,981,150 958,354 48·87

January 1865 to August 1865 1,129,772 518,673 45·91

November 1865 to May 1866 3,580,017 1,396,567 39·29

April 1867 to June 1867 305,418 127,576 41·77

July 1868 to August 1868 678,976 280,993 41·38

Coinage conducted between the Periods:— Sovereign Bars, “Rough.” Sovereigns Coined. Rate per cent. on Sovereign Bars.

Ounces. Ounces.

November 1856 to April 1857 480,704 288,592 60·03

October 1857 to March 1858 2,133,366 1,168,227 54·29

November 1858 to June 1859 1,341,862 592,325 44·14

January 1860 to March 1860 1,185,227 657,362 55·46

January 1861 to April 1861 1,402,538 717,010 51·12

June 1861 to March 1862 4,448,353 1,874,885 42·14

May 1862 to March 1863 4,237,267 2,220,713 52·40

October 1863 to June 1864 4,557,216 2,166,112 47·53

October 1864 to December 1864 1,713,659 847,357 49·44

January 1865 to August 1865 779,345 373,340 47·90

November 1865 to May 1866 2,676,226 1,041,926 38·11

April 1867 to June 1867 ... ... ...

July 1868 to August 1868 678,976 280,993 41·38

Coinage conducted between the Periods:— Half Sovereign Bars, “Rough.” Half Sovereigns Coined. Rate per cent. on Half Sovereign Bars.

Ounces. Ounces.

November 1856 to April 1857 622,699 167,983 26·97

October 1857 to March 1858 146,667 69,944 47·68

November 1858 to June 1859 614,099 323,203 52·63

January 1860 to March 1860 274,982 145,400 52·87

January 1861 to April 1861 304,560 145,319 47·71

June 1861 to March 1862

May 1862 to March 1863 297,110 134,092 45·13

October 1863 to June 1864 389,481 157,125 40·34

October 1864 to December 1864 267,491 110,986 41·48

January 1865 to August 1865 350,427 145,332 41·47

November 1865 to May 1866 903,791 354,640 39·23

April 1867 to June 1867 305,418 127,576 41·77

July 1868 to August 1868

Statement showing the Gold Bars used in each Coinage from November, 1856, to August, 1868, and the rate per centum of Ends, of Mixed Gold Coin, and of Sovereigns and Half Sovereigns produced from those Bars.

Coinage conducted between the Periods:— Mixed Bars, “Clean.” Ends cut from Bars. Sovereign Bars. “Clean.”

Ounces. Per Cent. Ounces.

November 1856 to April 1857 1,057,776 4·13 460,851

October 1857 to March 1858 2,192,798 3·82 2,051,872

November 1858 to June 1859 1,798,717 4·41 1,210,447

January 1860 to March 1860 1,414,516 3·13 1,148,130

January 1861 to April 1861 1,619,251 5·14 1,330,448

June 1861 to March 1862 4,215,722 5·22 4,215,722

May 1862 to March 1863 4,351,531 4·03 4,066,506

October 1863 to June 1864 4,566,032 ⁠[83]7·60 4,261,432

October 1864 to December 1864 1,851,724 6·48 1,602,533

January 1865 to August 1865 1,047,901 7·24 722,921

November 1865 to May 1866 3,336,536 6·80 2,494,243

April 1867 to June 1867 291,696 4·50 ..

July 1868 to August 1868 612,857 9·57 612,857

Coinage conducted between the Periods:— Half Sovereign Bars, “Clean.” Mixed Coin, including Pyx Pieces. Sovereigns from “Clean” Bars. Half Sovereigns from “Clean” Bars.

Ounces. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent.

November 1856 to April 1857 596,925 43·16 62·62 28·12

October 1857 to March 1858 140,926 56·39 56·93 49·63

November 1858 to June 1859 588,269 50·89 48·93 54·94

January 1860 to March 1860 266,386 56·75 56·43 54·54

January 1861 to April 1861 288,803 53·18 53·88 50·03

June 1861 to March 1862 ... ... 44·47

May 1862 to March 1863 285,025 54·03 54·60 47·39

October 1863 to June 1864 304,600 50·88 50·82 51·25

October 1864 to December 1864 249,191 51·75 52·87 44·53

January 1865 to August 1865 324,980 49·49 51·64 44·72

November 1865 to May 1866 842,293 41·80 41·77 42·10

April 1867 to June 1867 291,696 ... ... 43·70

July 1868 to August 1868 ... ... 45·84

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.

From On Rough Bars. On Clean Bars.

Mixed Coin. Sovereigns. Half Sovereigns. Mixed Coin. Sovereigns. Half Sovereigns. Ends.

November 1856 to March 1863 48·75 51·34 45·49 52·40 53·98 47·44 4·26

October 1863 to August 1868 44·03 44·87 40·85 48·48 48·58 45·26 7·03

Waste per Centum 4·72 6·57 4·64 3·92 5·40 2·18 2·77

Statement showing the Amount of Money Coined and of Pyx Pieces between November, 1856, and August, 1868.

LEGEND:

(A) = Money Coined:—Sovereigns and Half Sovereigns.

(B) = Coined Money:—Sovereigns

(C) = Coined Money:—Pyx Pieces.

(D) = Coined Money:—Half Sovereigns.

(E) = Coined Money:—Mixed Pyx Pieces.

Coinage conducted between the Periods:— (A) (B) (C)

Ounces. Ounces. Ounces.

November 1856 to April 1857 456111·568 288314·570 277·857

October 1857 to March 1858 1236713·674 1166819·294 1407·777

December 1858 to January 1859⁠[87] 450090·524 410119·648 584·990

March 1859 to June 1859⁠[88] 464407·847 181414·181 207·494

January 1860 to March 1860 801722·890 656425·814 936·549

January 1861 to April 1861 861205·000 715989·212 1021·293

June 1861 to March 1862 1872214·638 1872214·638 2670·720

May 1862 to March 1863 2351444·336 2217447·814 3265·725

October 1863 to June 1864 2320041·256 2163027·402 3085·452

October 1864 to December 1864 957057·966 846150·074 1207·216

January 1865 to August 1865 518037·315 372808·744 532·079

November 1865 to May 1866 1394809·101 1040421·949 1504·848

April 1867 to June 1867 127485·816

July 1868 to August 1868 280608·540 280608·540 385·200

Coinage conducted between the Periods:— (D) (C) (E)

Ounces. Ounces. Ounces.

November 1856 to April 1857 167796·998 186·436 464·293

October 1857 to March 1858 69894·380 49·947 1457·724

December 1858 to January 1859⁠[89] 39970·876 28·404 613·394

March 1859 to June 1859⁠[90] 282993·693 210·844 418·338

January 1860 to March 1860 145297·076 103·747 1040·296

January 1861 to April 186 145215·788 103·618 1124·911

June 1861 to March 1862

October 1863 to June 1864 157013·854 111·964 3197·416

October 1864 to December 1864 110907·892 79·094 1286·310

January 1865 to August 1865 145228·571 103·618 635·697

November 1865 to May 1866 354387·061 253·461 1758·309

April 1867 to June 1867 127485·816 90·265

July 1868 to August 1868

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 6s. 5d. per thousand pieces; while that of 1866 cost 13s. 2d. 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 17s. 10½d., when the total value of that coinage will be obtained, and found to be £1,777,796·15. Since each thousand coins cost 6s. 5d., the total sum was coined at an expense of £570 7s. 6d.; but, had the rate of expense been the same as for the coinage of 1866, the total cost would have been £1,170 7s. 7½d., or exactly £600 0s. 1½d. 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.

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 6s. a week, and, after twenty years, rose to 10s. a week; and if, as often happened, the Mint were idle for months together, this was all the poor fellows had to subsist upon; and, to reduce the value of this pittance to its smallest proportion, they were not entitled to it unless they should each day present themselves, and, by a fiction, ask for leave of absence for that day, the longest period for which leave can be granted. After many attempts to compel the men to comply with these terms, they were wisely permitted to go home, and “wait further orders;” so that, by a kind of tacit resistance, they were able to overcome a regulation which would make it impossible to obtain employment elsewhere, because most other work commences before eight, at which hour they were required to present themselves. If, instead of this unsatisfactory state, the men were paid fixed wages, and, in addition, so much for each 100 lbs. of coined money produced, they would be satisfied, while the coined money would be produced at a cheaper rate, for each man would be concerned to see that every exertion was made for the final event; whereas, under the then arrangement, with a specific amount of gold to be coined, it is manifest that, with management such as is now under discussion, the sum for wages might be doubled, because the men were paid at the following

Rates for Piece-work.

LEGEND:

(A) = Rolling Fillets.

(B) = Adjusting and Cutting.

(C) = Marking and Annealing.

(D) = Coining in Press Room.

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

For each 100 lbs. Troy of Good Work produced. (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

Silver Florins and upwards 1 6 2 6 2 0 1 8 5

Shillings 2 0 3 6 3 6 3 0 5

Sixpences 4 0 7 0 7 0 6 0 5

Fourpences 5 0 8 0 14 0 12 0 0

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:—

£ 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 7s. 5½d., 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.

Statement showing the Cost of producing 1,000 Coined Sovereigns and Half Sovereigns.

Date of Coining Denomination of Coin. Total Number of Coins in the Coinage. Average Number of Pieces per Week. Total Sum paid to Workmen as Wages.

£ 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

Date of Coining Cost of 1,000 Pieces in Wages. Cost of 1000 pieces in Salaries and contingent expenses. Cost in Loss of Metal by Coining. Total Cost of producing 1000 Gold Coins.

£ 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 11¼

1864 0 7 2 0 12 9¼ 0 6 0 1 5 11¼

Date of Coining Cost of 1,000 Pieces for melting. Total Cost of producing one Gold 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 7s. 2d., at the periods above given, and shown as 1857-8, the cost was 3s. 5½d. for the same number of coins, thus showing a clear saving for wages, by the proper system of management, of 3s. 8½d. on each 1,000 sovereigns coined, or on that total quantity no less than £1,050 2s. 8½d. 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 1s. 9d. per 1,000 good pieces, and all bronze coining at the rate of £2 10s. per ton for pence, £3 10s. 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 10s., and after three years’ service, to 15s. per week. The only exception to these arrangements would be the payments made to certain overmen, which would be in one case £1 10s., and in five other cases £1 5s. 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 per week. = 420,600 pieces at 1/9 per 1,000. 300 journeys per week. = 420,600 pieces at 1/9 per 1,000.

Wages £36·80 £36·80

SILVER.

Florins. Shillings. Sixpences. Threepences.

240 journeys per week. = 475,200 pieces at 1/9 per 1,000. 180 journeys per week. = 712,800 pieces at 1/9 per 1,000. 108 journeys per week. = 855,360 pieces at 1/9 per 1,000. 60 journeys per week. = 950,400 pieces at 1/9 per 1,000.

£41·55 £62·37 £74·84 £33·16

BRONZE.

Pennies. Half Pennies. Farthings.

30 cwt. per diem, or say 9 tons a week at £2 10s. per ton. 25 cwt. per diem, or say 7·50 tons a week at £3 10s. per ton. 12 cwt. per diem, or say 3·60 tons a week at £7 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 0·174d., while under Mr. Graham’s system it would appear to have been 0·311d. 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 14s. 4¼d. in 1857, it had reached £1 5s. 11¼d. in the years 1864-66 (see page 117). The increased expense thus incurred amounts to 11s. 7d. on each 1,000 coins, or, on the whole amount of that coinage, to £3,280 4s. 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 6s. 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 6s. and 2s. 9½d. is sufficient to make men think, for even this trifle of 3s. 2½d. on 1,000 coins amounts to £908 2s. 6½d. 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 18s. 10½2d. per million coined, or 2·386d. per 1,000 pieces coined, so reducing the cost of these actual coins to £1 0s. 10½d. and £1 1s. 6d. 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.

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 19s. 10d., 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 2s. 6d. 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 14s. per week, to be increased 1s. 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 2s. 0¼d. 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 1½d. 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 4s. 3¾d. 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 1½d. 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 1½d. 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.

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 1s. 6d. to 2s. 9d. irrespective of extrinsic worth, were returned to the Mint, this economy was soon abandoned.

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]:—

“This gives in a million coined a net loss of £257 7s. 0¾d.; ... 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 14s. 0¾d.’

He then proceeds to show that “the loss on the gold coinage for the (then) last three years was £172 8s. 11½d.,” 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 2s. 6d. 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 4s. 3¾d., 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 3s. 9¾d. for each £100 coined (see page 146), and in addition to this tax he has to pay 1s. 9d. for each 1,000 coins manufactured for labour, besides the contingent expenses, including packing, insurance, &c. All expenses must come within 15s. for each £100, because this is the sum at which the foreign contractors gladly accept coinages. While saying thus much, it has been necessary to reserve facts which would be indispensable to a contractor, because such information should be rendered to a contractor only on terms such as another would be willing to offer for it, and to publish it here would be hardly fair to those whose business it is to live by coining.

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

Bank of England Profit.

By the charge of 1½d. on each ounce of gold £1605·100

By the system of absorbing assay fractions 166·666

By the turn of the scale on purchase 71·339

On each million coined £1843·105

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