THE ROYAL MINT. (continued 6)

THE GOVERNMENT IN ACCOUNT WITH THE SILVER COINAGE.

Coined in the Reign of George III.:—

Crowns £322,000

Half-Crowns 2,387,000

Shillings 3,304,000

Sixpences 919,000

£6,932,000

Supposing the cost of the Silver to have been 5s. 1d. an ounce in the new money, there would remain 5d. per ounce as profit to the Government. That 5d. would be about 7·57 per Cent. on the amount coined.

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

Compound Interest thereon at

3½ per Cent. for 43 Years, the

true Average Number of Years

as nearly as can be made out 1,779,000

2,304,000

Coined in the Reign of George IV.:—

Crowns 141,000

Half-Crowns 1,114,000

Shillings 879,000

Sixpences 81,000

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

Compound Interest at 3½ for 35 Years 392,000

560,000

Coined in the Reign of William IV.:—

Half-Crowns 381,000

Shillings 412,000

Sixpences 282,000

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

Compound Interest at 3½ for 15 Years 111,000

192,000

Coined in the Reign of Victoria:—

Crowns 117,000

Half-Crowns 1,043,000

Florins 1,541,000

Shillings 2,610,000

Sixpences 1,182,000

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

Compound Interest at 3½ for 15 Years 332,000

824,000

£3,880,000

Loss by Wear:—

On amount remaining in Circulation £910,000

Ditto withdrawn from Circulation 255,000

£1,165,000

Expenses of Coinage:—

Crowns and Half-Crowns at 2¼ per Cent. 124,000

Shillings at 2·85 per Cent. 205,000 329,000

Compound Interest thereon, 30 Years at 3½ per Cent 594,000

923,000

Sixpences at 3¼ per Cent. 80,000

Compound Interest thereon, 26 Years at 3¼ per Cent. 116,000

196,000

Florins at 2½ per Cent 39,000

Compound Interest thereon, 5 Years at 3¼ per Cent. 5,000

44,000

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

at the Government’s expense (£1,316,500) 100,000

Compound Interest, at 3½ per Cent. for Average of 10 Years 41,000

141,000

Balance 1,411,000

£3,880,000

I communicate this Statement as my grounds for the Estimate that

the Government owes the Silver Coinage a million and a half, and

not as an Account.

December, 1860. W. MILLER.

It has been proposed to reap a harvest of profit from the silver coinage, just as was done with the bronze coinage, but with this difference—that whereas the old copper pennies, when alloyed with tin and zinc, made TWO BRONZE pennies, thus making the profit by a diminution of weight, the present suggestion is to reduce the amount of silver in the silver coinage, and so to get profit by converting the old coinage into a new one of lower standard. So long as silver is only a token it can make no difference in matter of fact whether that token be intrinsically worth sixpence, eightpence, or tenpence, so that it represents and is legally payable for the twentieth part of a pound up to a fixed amount; but in another light the lowering of the standard has a very material interest to the people, and in this way. If those coinages which are made of different alloys from our own, that is, in different proportions of silver and copper, be examined, it will be found that none of them wear so well as our own. Elaborate experiments, carefully made, determined that silver, when alloyed with copper in the proportion of 222 of the former to 18 of the latter, formed the most fitting alloy. Tested by practice in the pocket, those experiments are demonstrated to have been justly performed, and that their results were accurate. It is worthy of remark, that in the reign of Edward III. these proportions formed the Old Standard, showing that long anterior to that period it had been used, although no record is preserved. It is also certain that these same proportions were used in many subsequent reigns, and we can but suppose that our ancestors had their wise reasons for arriving at such a standard. Indeed, Mr. Hatchett, in his elaborate experiments on gold and silver coins, arrived at the conclusion that metal of medium ductility was best fitted for the manufacture of coined money. He recommended the preserving of the present standard for gold on that ground, and fails to make any remarks as to silver; hence it may be fairly assumed that he considered it the best for its purpose. It is, however, certain that pure silver is too ductile, while silver alloyed with 20 per cent. is really as ductile as pure silver, and in our present standard we appear to have the medium impliedly recommended by Mr. Hatchett. The old proportion was again adopted for our standard of silver coin when, by the Act Geo. III. cap. 68, sec. 4, it was enacted that 66 shillings shall be made from the pound troy of silver of the standard of 11 oz. 2 dwts. of fine silver and 18 dwts. of alloy. The alteration proposed has varied from a mixture of 10 per cent. to one of 20 per cent. of alloy. Now, one of these is a minute alteration, but in such matters it is surprising to the uninitiated to find how small a variation of proportion effects a great change in character; take, for instance, the difference in qualities of steel, where the proportion best fitted for each purpose must be used, or waste is incurred. In cases where the metal is required for cutlery a different steel is selected from that which is used for the manufacture of dies, and yet the difference consists in a minute proportion of carbon, to be detected only by analysis. So with the alloy of silver; and, if a profit be made by reducing the proportion of silver, a greater loss will take place by wear and tear, and the people pay for this, because the profit on a silver coinage depends on the length of the period during which the coins wear. Should a change be effected, it is to be hoped that it will not be based on the series of experiments lately conducted in the Royal Mint, and which were simply determinations of how much grinding each alloy could bear under different circumstances, there being no doubt that the proper mode is to let some thousands of coins be carried by careful observers in their pockets in the ordinary mode of carrying money, and at intervals to weigh those coins and see their loss, as well as to examine them for their deterioration in an artistic point. For it should not be forgotten that the act of coining is an important act of Sovereignty, and should be properly performed, that the Monarch may not appear to be held in light esteem. The ordinary wear encountered in the use of coins by shopkeepers could also be tested without risk or trouble. We as a people need not debase our coinage simply for the sake of a first gain, for, if that be the object, the Government might as well contract for advertisements, and thus make profit; but it may fairly be doubted whether our shillings would be improved in appearance if they were substituted for paving-stones,—the late favourite medium for advertising. Yet, if gain alone is to be the consideration, these points should be determined. It appears to be the object of a coinage to make a medal which shall best encounter wear and tear without loss or deterioration. This, we know, is best gained by employing artists of the highest talent, and coiners who know how to give effect to the artist’s intention. It is almost indisputably the fact that this has never been so well performed as in the shillings of William Wyon, designed after the bust by Chantry, and which coins, to this day, far surpass those of subsequent coinages in every way. The remarks of Mr. Pepys seem to be quite fitting if applied to our present coinage, and demonstrate how truthfully it has been said that history reproduces itself; for on Feb. 20, 1660, he says:—“... where we met with Mr. Slingsby, who showed me the stamps of the King’s new coyne; which is strange to see, how good they are in the stamp, and bad in the money for lack of skill to make them. But he says Blondeau will shortly come over, and then we shall have it better, and the best in the world.” The protecting edge should be raised and thick, and the work of the die well sunk, as then by friction less surface is exposed, and the coin would not only last longer in circulation, but would during its whole existence carry the image and superscription. While this improvement should be effected, the note of Mr. Pepys, on the 23rd November, 1663, should not be forgotten, for he says, with great point:—“... with Alderman Backewell talking of the new money, which he says will never be counterfeited, he believes; but it is so deadly inconvenient for telling, it is so thick, and the edges are made to turn up.” Mr. Backewell had become accustomed to the hammered money, and felt the thickness of the milled; but we have found the advantage of the milled money, and do not like it when, after a short existence, it becomes as thin as the hammered money was. The protecting edge not only protects the design on the coin, but it also makes the coin more difficult of bending, and bent coins are troublesome.

In former reigns unwise counsels have prevailed, and the coinages have been tampered with; but the invariable event has been disaster, as has been clearly shown by Mr. Lowndes, who says:—“Although the former debasements of coins by public authority, especially those in the reigns of King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth, might be projected for the profit of the Crown, and the projectors might measure that profit by the excessive quantities of alloy that were mixed with the silver or gold, and although this was enterprised by a Prince who could stretch his prerogative very far upon his people, and was done in times when this nation had very little commerce, inland or foreign, to be injured or prejudiced thereby, yet experience presently showed that the projectors were mistaken, and that it was absolutely necessary to have the base moneys reformed; the doing whereof was begun by King Edward the Sixth himself, carried on by King Philip and Queen Mary, and happily finished (though not without great charge, vexation, and trouble, the only offspring of such designs) by Queen Elizabeth, who (as is noted above) in the third year of her reign, when money was not plentiful, erected a distinct Mint in the Tower to convert the base (not counterfeit money) into sterling;” and continuing, he says:—

“Thirdly. Because making of base money will disgrace this Government in future generations, the critics in every age being apt to estimate the goodness or badness of ancient Governments by their coin, as hath been done, especially in the case of the Romans, and a temptation of this kind ought not to be left for future ages, to the prejudice of the honour of the present King.”

Surely, with such experience before him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot wish to persevere with his proposal—which can hardly be called original—to debase our gold coinage, when such a measure has been so deliberately condemned by experience in former periods.

Statement of Work Performed in the Coining Department between October 1st, 1857, and March 31st, 1858, inclusive.

The Coinage was completed in 63 Days. The Value of the coined Silver was £234177·96875.

IN ROLLING ROOM.

Received. Returned.

As by Rolling Room Beam. As by Mint Office Beam.

Bars for Florins.

Ounces. Ounces. Ounces.

As by Mint Office Beam. 761202·00 Florin Fillets 728342·56

As by Rolling Room Beam. 761212·67 ” Ends 32956·95 32956·90

Showing a plus difference. 10·67 Deduct “received.” 761299·51

Increase during work. 86·84

Bars for Shillings

Ounces.

As by Mint Office Beam. 528613·00 Shilling Fillets 504599·40

As by Rolling Room Beam. 528617·25 ” Ends 24081·80 24081·91

Showing a plus difference. 4·25 Deduct “received.” 528681·20

Increase during work. 63·95

Bars for Sixpences.

Ounces.

As by Mint Office Beam. 175644·00 Sixpenny Fillets 168666·70

As by Rolling Room Beam. 175644·54 ” Ends 7003·10 7003·07

Showing a plus difference. 0·54 Deduct “received.” 175669·80

Increase during work. 24·26

Bars for Threepences.

Ounces.

As by Mint Office Beam. 33643·00 Threepenny Fillets. 32661·25

As by Rolling Room Beam 33642·20 Threepenny Ends. 987·55 987·55

Showing a minus difference. 0·80 Deduct “Received.” 33648·80

Increase during work. 6·60 65029·43

IN CUTTING ROOM.

Received. Returned.

As by Cutting Room Beam. As by Mint Office Beam.

Fillets for Florins.

Ounces. Ounces. Ounces.

As by Rolling Room Beam. 728342·56 Florin Blanks 433013·65

As by Cutting Room Beam. 728339·29 ” Scissel 295327·34 295327·98

Showing a minus difference. 3·27 Deduct “received.” 728340·99

Increase during work. 86·84

Fillets for Shillings

Ounces.

As by Rolling Room Beam. 504599·40 Shilling Blanks 320518·84

As by Cutting Room Beam. 504598·71 ” Scissel 184117·20 184117·20

Showing a minus difference. 0·69 Deduct “received.” 504636·04

Increase during work. 37·33

Fillets for Sixpences.

Ounces.

As by Rolling Room Beam. 168666·70 Sixpenny Blanks. 101407·09

As by Cutting Room Beam 168666·25 Sixpenny Scissel. 67271·99 67271·99

Showing a minus difference. 0·45 Deduct “Received.” 168679·08

Increase during work. 12·83

Fillets for Threepences.

Ounces.

As by Rolling Room Beam. 32661·25 Threepenny Blanks. 19373·13

As by Cutting Room Beam 32661·25 Threepenny Scissel. 13293·73 13293·73

Showing no difference. 0·00 Deduct “Received.” 32666·86

Increase during work. 5·61 560010·90

IN WEIGHING ROOM.

Received. Returned.

As by Weighing Room Beam. As by Mint Office Beam.

Blanks for Florins.

Ounces. Ounces. Ounces.

As by Cutting Room Beam. 433013·65 Florin Blanks. 423988·43

As by Weighing Room Beam. 433010·55 ” Rejected. 9020·63 9020·63

Showing a minus difference. 3·10 Deduct “received.” 433009·06

Loss during work. 1·49

Blanks for Shillings

Ounces.

As by Cutting Room Beam. 320518·84 Shilling Blanks.s 315492·95

As by Weighing Room Beam. 20516·07 Shilling Rejected 5021·79 5021·79

Showing a minus difference. 2·77 Deduct “received.” 320514·74

Loss during work. 1·33

Blanks for Sixpences.

Ounces.

As by Cutting Room Beam. 101407·09 Sixpenny Blanks. 99083·98

As by Weighing Room Beam. 101406·65 Sixpenny Rejected. 2223·63 2223·63

Showing a minus difference. 0·44 Deduct “received.” 101407·61

Increase during work. 0·96

Blanks for Threepences.

Ounces.

As by Cutting Room Beam. 19373·13 Threepenny Blanks. 19326·87

As by Weighing Room Beam 19372·96 Threepenny Rejected. 46·03 46·03

Showing a minus difference. 0·17 Deduct “Received.” 319372·90

Loss during work. 0·06 16312·08

IN ANNEALING ROOM.

Received. Returned.

As by Annealing Room Beam. As by Mint Office Beam.

Blanks for Florins.

Ounces. Ounces. Ounces.

As by Weighing Room Beam. 423988·43 Florin Blanks 423606·37

As by Annealing Room Beam. 423984·25 Loss of Weight by Annealing and Blanching. 367·84

Showing a minus difference. 4·18 Deduct “received.” 423974·21

Loss 10·04

Blanks for Shillings

Ounces.

As by Weighing Room Beam. 315492·95 Shilling Blanks 315190·47

As by Annealing Room Beam. 315490·42 Loss of Weight by Annealing and Blanching. 283·86

Showing a minus difference. 2·53 Deduct “received.” 315474·33

Loss 16·09

Blanks for Sixpences.

Ounces.

As by Weighing Room Beam. 99083·98 Sixpenny Blanks 98980·28

As by Annealing Room Beam. 99083·67 Loss of Weight by Annealing and Blanching. 103·39

Showing a minus difference. 0·31 Deduct “received.” 99083·67

Loss 0·00

Blanks for Threepences.

Ounces.

As by Weighing Room Beam. 19326·87 Threepenny Blanks 19304·08 Supply.⁠[123]

As by Annealing Room Beam 19326·72 Loss of Weight by Annealing and Blanching. 22·64 47·67

Showing a minus difference. 0·15 Deduct “Received.” 19326·72

Loss 0·00 47·67

IN PRESS ROOM.

Received. Returned.

As by Press Room Beam. As by Mint Office Beam.

Blanks for Florins.

Ounces. Ounces. Ounces.

As by Annealing Room Beam. 423606·37 Florin Coin 420367·28 420278·40

As by Press Room Beam. 423606·37 Florin Brockages. 2951·76 3069·61

Showing no difference. 0·00 Florin Pyx Pieces. 283·86 283·86

Deduct “received.” 423602·90

Loss 3·47

Blanks for Shillings

Ounces.

As by Annealing Room Beam. 315190·47 Shilling Coin 313853·64 313847·00

As by Press Room Beam. 315190·47 Shilling Brockages. 1227·88 1228·17

Showing no difference. 0·00 Shilling Pyx Pieces. 107·87 107·87

Deduct “received.” 315189·39

Loss 1.08

Blanks for Sixpences.

Ounces.

As by Annealing Room Beam. 98980·28 Sixpenny Coin 98279·81 98271·65

As by Press Room Beam. 98980·28 Sixpenny Brockages 678·84 678·84

Showing no difference. 0·54 Sixpenny Pyx Pieces. 21·18 21·18

Deduct “received.” 98979·83

Loss 0·45

Blanks for Threepences.

Ounces.

As by Annealing Room Beam. 19304·08 Threepenny Coin. 19145·45 19159·20

As by Press Room Beam 19304·08 Threepenny Brockages. 154·85 154·85

Showing no difference. 0·00 Threepenny Pyx Pieces. 3·02 3·02

Deduct “Received.” 19303·32

Loss 0·76 857103·65

Ounces.

Total received from Mint Office 1499104·00

” returned to”” 1498503·73

Loss 600·27

The proportional loss on this coinage was 0·199 ounces on each 500 ounces coined, instead of 1 in 500 as the Master had expected must be the case.

The mean rate of

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

” Scissel was 37·85 ” ” ”

” Rejected Blanks was 0·89 ” ” ”

” Brockages was 0·38 ” ” ”

” Coined Money was 56.87 ” ” ”

” Coined Money was 59·22 ” ” Clean Bars

WAGES PAID TO WORKMEN BY PIECE-WORK SCALE.

Florins. Shillings. Sixpences. Threepences.

For Melting 13·215 9·176 3·079 0·584

” Rolling 45·521 42·045 28·111 8·165

” Cutting 44·165 46·008 28·899 8·052

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

” Coining 29·192 39·231 24·570 9·572

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

Rate paid for each 100 lbs. troy of Coined Money. £0·475 £0·697 £1·386 £2·358

Rate per cent. of Coined Money from Rough Bars. Rate per cent. of Coined Money from Clean Bars.

Florins 55·26 57·76

Shillings 59·38 62·22

Sixpences 55·96 58·29

To the Master of the Mint.

GEORGE F. ANSELL.

May 6th 1858.

It would appear necessary that I should now give⁠[124] a copy of one of the reports I made to the Master, showing for silver a similarly detailed history of its manipulation to that which was given for gold (see page 92); and as that was fully explained, it is felt unnecessary to say more of this report than to point out that the blanks are simply stamped in the press room, and that as this operation produces no alteration of weight, the losses recorded were due to abstractions of coined money, and were reported to the Master as such, while the loss exhibited in the annealing room was also due to the same cause. The loss which appears to have arisen in the weighing room arises from another cause. The blanks when operated upon lose little splinters of metal, which are preserved, and at the end of the coinage go to a fund of odd pieces, which are melted; and the ingot produced is assayed, its estimated amount of silver is determined, and this is called supply, and will be seen to be 47·67 ounces for the whole department, although it appears in the annealing room account, because it is usually cleaned in that room.

As regards the accounts for the rolling and cutting rooms, it would be a source of interest to the curious could they but examine the books and compare them for periods previously to and after 1857, when it would be demonstrated that nearly the whole of the losses above explained took place in those rooms. I stopped these evaporations, and removed the word loss which was habitually printed at the foot of each day’s account, replacing it by the word GAIN, because that significant word expressed what should have happened, and that which under me did really take place in these rooms.

It is remarkable, but even in so simple a matter as the bronze coinage there also arises a large loss—that is, a great part of the profit is lost. I therefore propose to say a few words upon this subject, and see if reason will confirm the facts of experience. The average value of copper is about £100 a ton, and this may be assumed as the average price of bronze in ingots. It is perfectly well understood that bronze and copper coins are both accepted as token money; but some amongst us may remember when copper pennies were so coined as that each penny was intrinsically worth that sum, the intention being that any customer could check the honesty of the shopkeeper when he bought an ounce of tea or tobacco, by placing his “cart-wheel-penny” against the commodity still in the scale. Experience, however, demonstrated that this was not a right footing for a subservient coinage. It was found that when copper in the market fluctuated to a price beyond 1d. per ounce, this coinage was collected and melted. Therefore it was determined to make the intrinsic far below the extrinsic value, and then to limit the legal tender to 2s. in nominal value in copper money.

In 1860 the copper token money was replaced by bronze token money, and the weight of this was still farther reduced, so that the intrinsic value of a penny became as nearly as possible one farthing—that is to say, a farthing’s worth of copper or bronze had given to it in the act of coining an extrinsic value equal to a penny, by which a profit of 300 per cent. would appear to be realised. But since some of the bronze is coined into pence, halfpence, and farthings, and these vary in their proportional intrinsic value, it is felt to be fair to give the Government every possible latitude, because Lord Kinnaird evidently accepted those facts when he made his speech in the House of Lords.

Bronze costs £100 a ton, and a ton of bronze is, on an average, converted into £358 when coined—that is to say, £100 intrinsic value receives by the act of coining an extrinsic value equal to £358, and so yields a profit of £258. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year asked for, and obtained, £1,000 to defray the loss on bronze, the fact being that on the value coined—£10,010—there should have been a clear profit of £25,825. And it so happens that, by the return No. 157, 1869, a profit is admitted to the modest extent of £6,318 0s. 2d. Why was the £1,000 asked for, and what became of the £6,318 0s. 2d.? and further, why was that modest sum allowed to take the place of the proper profit, or £25,825?

The return above quoted, No. 157, 1869, shows that in the nine years, 1860-1868, the purchase value of copper bought for coinage was £489,071, and the same return shows that this intrinsic value was converted into money of the nominal value of £991,833; therefore, by deducting the cost from that sum, there appears a clear profit of £502,762 on bronze since 1860, which is at the moderate rate of £102 per cent. on the outlay. It will be well to investigate farther, and perhaps to take the contract given to Messrs. James Watt and Co. for 1,720 tons in 1860. The sum paid to that firm, added to the cost of copper supplied to them for the manufacture of bronze to produce 1,720 tons of coin, was £229,200; and the 1,720 tons of bronze money forwarded to the Mint by the terms of that contract was, in nominal value, when delivered, £696,293, so that the profit on that one transaction was £467,093, or at the rate of £203 per cent. on the outlay. The last coin (a penny) to complete this contract was struck by Messrs. Watt at 9 A.M. on Thursday, the 11th of June, 1863; so that the coinage, which has been conducted since that period, has been struck under the superintendence of the present Mint officials. The return No. 157, 1869, shows that, at the period when the Mint was receiving bronze coin from the contractors, and was at the same time coining bronze—viz., from 1860-1863, the profit was diluted from 258 to 108 per cent.; but when the Mint took the whole manufacture from 1864 to 1868, under Mr. John Graham alone, that profit was further lessened to 78·70 per cent., or rather less than £78 15s. was made where £258 should have been made.

The Mint officials may, and probably will, plead that this return, as well as that relating to silver, is “false;” still they must stand or fall by their own figures, or issue intelligible and trustworthy returns to the orders of the House of Commons; and these exhibit the fact that Messrs. Watt’s contract gave a profit of 203 per cent.; the Mint and Messrs. Watt’s contract jointly of 108 per cent.; the Mint solely, of only 78¾ per cent. It will probably be asserted that the purchase of the old copper money caused the apparent loss; but this argument will be disposed of if we take the case of 1863, up to which period 1,651 tons 8 cwts. 2 qrs. 27¾ lbs.; of worn copper coin had been purchased at an absolute cost of £234·80 per ton. To assume then that this was the cause for diminished profit, let us see if it can be proved to demonstration. I have shown that a ton of bronze money is worth £358, and a ton of copper, when bought as old coin, £234·80; therefore, the copper so bought should yield profit of about £152·50 per centum. But it should do more than this; for I, of my own knowledge,—because I ordered it,—state that bronze was bought to a considerable amount at the then current rate of new copper. The following, however, is the worst that could happen:—If the whole of the old copper cost £234·80 per ton, when converted into bronze money, it would produce £358, or equal to £152·5 per cent. profit. Upon what ground then can the profit—when new copper at the lower price is bought—be reduced so low as to 108 per cent., and then fall to £78·70 per cent. on the copper purchased? Were any prosecutions made, or were men simply told their “services were no longer required?” If the accounts were investigated by a professional accountant, what amount of loss in weight—in addition to the loss by dirt which amounted to 0·41 per cent. on each ton melted—would be shown when they were balanced? Another curious inquiry might be made:—At what rate for labour was bronze money coined in the Royal Mint after the cessation of the contract? It might be found to be exorbitant.

Since, however, Lord Kinnaird directed attention to this subject, Mr. Fremantle has adjusted the return No. 157, as regards bronze, in a manner similar to, yet differing from, that relating to silver. I propose to insert copies of these returns, following the arrangement adopted for those relating to silver; and it will be seen that whereas Mr. Graham showed a profit of £502,761 11s. 11d. between the years 1860-68, without an instance of loss, Mr. Fremantle not only alters all the figures relating to the copper purchased, but reduces Mr. Graham’s profit to £403,376 18s. 6d. and shows a loss in 1864 to the extent of £31,896 13s. 4d.; which sum, deducted from £435,273 11s. 10d., yields the profit Mr. Fremantle is willing to admit. I am fully aware that “figures may be made to tell anything;” but until the year 1870 I was not aware that Parliament would permit its returns to be altered, amended, or adjusted without leave or a word of explanation. Surely such an occurrence, added to evidence previously adduced, will cause some independent member to “tackle” even Mr. Lowe in the House of Commons. Why Mr. Fremantle, in the case of silver, converts loss into profit, and in that of bronze reduces, apparently without reason, the amount of profit, should be explained. I have done my share in calling attention to the facts. It should be pointed out that the figures relating to 1869 in the following return are inserted, but not demonstrated, because I wish to mark emphatically the fact that it is Mr. Graham’s figures alone which are made to perform these operations, while those of Mr. Fremantle yield a profit of £12,476 4s. 6d., or at the rate of £137·35 per centum on the copper purchased.

No. 157.—Return to an Order of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 21st April, 1869, for Account “of all Gold, Silver, and Copper Moneys of the Realm Coined at the Mint, for each Year from the 1st day of January, 1859, to the 31st day of December, 1868, &c.,” in continuation of No. 340, 1857-68.

(Mr. AYRTON, page 4.)

Date Total Value of Copper Coined. Purchase Value of Copper. Profit on Coinage. Loss on Coinage.

1860 £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.

Copper 134 8 0

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

Bronze:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THOS. GRAHAM, Master of the Mint.

Royal Mint, 19th April, 1869.

No. 262.—Return to an Order of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 30th May, 1870, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 157, of Session 1868-9.

(Mr. STANSFELD, page 4.)

LEGEND:

(A) = Total Value of Copper Coined.

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

Date (A) (B) Profit on Coinage. Loss on Coinage.

1860 £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.

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

Bronze 37,856 0 0

Bronze:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1869 20,832 0 0 8,355 15 6

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

C. W. FREMANTLE, Deputy Master of the Mint.

Royal Mint, 31st May, 1870.

The foregoing is demonstrative of the processes of coining as conducted in the Royal Mint, and of the system which prevails in that Department; I feel it right, however, to add an epitome of the trial of the pyx, a custom established by the Mint Indenture of 18th Edward III.

I will describe the trial which took place on the 17th of July, 1861, when the Lord Chancellor Westbury presided in the absence of the Queen, whom he represented as though she were personally present. It should have commenced at nine o’clock in the morning, but some delay was caused by the inability to open the pyx chamber in Westminster Abbey, owing to the rusting of the locks. The Lord Chancellor was supported by the following members of the Most Honourable the Privy Council, Lord Granville, the Duke of Argyll, Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right Hon. Robert Lowe; Lord Monteagle attending officially with the trial plates in sealed packages. The jury of twelve men selected by the Goldsmiths’ Company was then sworn in due form. Lord Monteagle next declared that the trial plates were standard according to law, and that they were in the same state, and that the seals were in the same state, as when deposited in the pyx chamber. The Lord Chancellor then charged the jury, telling them of the prerogative of the Crown, and that the Sovereign has a right to issue money bearing her image and superscription, and that the people take such money in commerce because it is guaranteed of certain purity, that this guarantee also insures the receiving of the money by foreign nations; and that these facts made the attesting of its purity a vital point, that all people might be assured by their verdict that the money issued is in accordance with the law, both as to weight and fineness. The Lord Chancellor then explained the laws relating to the coinage, and that the Master of the Mint, who was present, would, if their verdict were favourable, be discharged from further liabilities as to the coin he had made up to the 31st of December, 1860. After this the Lord Chancellor dwelt upon the antiquity of the trial of the pyx very briefly, and then explained that the word pyx is of Greek origin, and means “box”—the box in which is placed the money to be tested by the jury. He then explained the law as to the custody of the pyx and of its keys, and passed on to the latitude allowed for errors as to the standarding of the alloy, and for the remedy by weight for each pound of manufactured coin;⁠[125] stating that there had been one adverse verdict found by a jury at the trial of the pyx, but that the present verdict would doubtless be favourable to the Master of the Mint, who would then be discharged from further liabilities by Royal letters-patent. He then adjourned the jury to the Goldsmiths’ Hall to make the necessary tests and trials of the coin, desiring that they should afterwards deliver their verdict to him, either at the House of Lords at six o’clock, or at his residence at eight o’clock. Lord Monteagle then handed the trial plates to the foreman of the jury. The trial plates are wide ribbons of gold and of silver, about as thick as a florin, and indented on the edges. The face of each plate is stamped with the obverse impression of a sovereign die; and the date of its manufacture, with the proportion of its alloy, is engraved on each plate.

The jury, having arrived at the Goldsmiths’ Hall, proceeded to count and weigh the gold and silver moneys of Sir John Herschel, and of Thomas Graham, Esq.; they then selected a fixed number from the coins of each Mastership for trial by assay, following a process similar to that described at pages 10-14. The jury also tested the coined money by weight, but did not test any individual coin (see new law, pages 70-73) as to its weight, because the old law only required the coined money to be within the limits of weight allowed, supposing a fixed number of any coins to be weighed against a standard pound. The limit, or remedy, was 12 grains on each pound weight troy of gold coin, or about O·2568218 grain on each sovereign, and 24·00 grains on each pound weight troy of silver coin. After the assay the jury agreed upon a verdict, which was to the effect that the moneys of both Masterships were found by them to be within the remedy, both as regards weight and fineness. This verdict was delivered at eight o’clock P.M., at the Lord Chancellor’s private residence. The Master of the Mint was present, with his Deputy Master and other officers, during the trial. The total amount in the pyx at this trial was £36,417 10s. in gold moneys, and £807 4s. 3d. in silver moneys, and from these the jury selected a total of 60·616 ounces of gold and 71·018 ounces of silver for the assays.

In the same manner the trial of the pyx was held at Westminster on the 19th January, 1866, the only difference consisting in the fact that at that time £34,927,008 8s. 0¼d. in coined gold, and £1,556,100 11s. 10d. in coined silver were submitted to this test.

In an earlier page⁠[126] I have expressed my views as to the worthlessness of the farce called the Trial of the Pyx. While I studiously avoid altering that expression of opinion, I am sorry that the last Trial of the Pyx under the ancient law took place on Tuesday, the 15th day of February, 1870. I could have felt less regret at the removal of this ancient custom from one law to another, had there been provision for its better execution; but simply to do away with the sacred charm of antiquity, and to enact a troublesome deception, is worse than a blunder; it is, in my antiquarian view, a crime.

The Trial of the Pyx—now, without meaning, as well as a farce—is to be held, under the Act 33 Victoria, chap. 10, at least once in every year. Why not daily throughout the year—that its absurdity may be demonstrated more markedly? Had it been as it should have been, a real trial of the Pyx, instead of an examination with a foregone conclusion of certain coins; “at least once in every year,” would have been not only justifiable but right.