Chapter I: Part 1

Transcriber’s Notes:

Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
in the original text.
Equal signs “=” before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold=
in the original text.
Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
Footnotes and illustrations have been moved so they do not break up
paragraphs.
Deprecated spellings have been preserved.
Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.

THE ROYAL MINT:

_=Its Working, Conduct, and Operations,
Fully and Practically Explained;=_

WITH
SUGGESTIONS FOR ITS BETTER SCIENTIFIC AND OFFICIAL MANAGEMENT.
RE-WRITTEN, ENLARGED, AND REVISED TO THE PRESENT TIME.
TO WHICH IS ADDED, AS AN APPENDIX,

A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD KINNAIRD, K.T.

BY GEORGE FREDERICK ANSELL,
ANALYTICAL CHEMIST.
LATE OF THE ROYAL MINT,
FORMERLY OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF CHEMISTRY.

_ILLUSTRATED WITH ENGRAVINGS._

“To have a thing is little if you’re not allowed to show it;
And to know a thing is nothing unless others know you know it.”

LORD NEAVES.

THIRD EDITION.

LONDON:
EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.
1871.

_Entered at Stationers’ Hall._] [_All rights reserved._

Ipswich, _March 1st, 1871_.
DEAR MR. ANSELL,

I have no objection to your appending to the third edition of your book your letter to me in regard to your case, and my correspondence with Mr. Gladstone and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if you add in addition to this correspondence the report of the debate on my motion for a committee to inquire into the management of the Mint, I should wish to make some few remarks on the subject in question; but before doing so I must take the opportunity of thanking you for letting me see Mr. Fremantle’s letter in answer to your offer, made at my suggestion, to meet Mr. Fremantle with a view to rendering him some assistance (which from your great experience you are well able to do) in the management of the Mint, which I have reason to know both he and Mr. Lowe find _somewhat difficult_.

The answer is evidently dictated by Mr. Lowe. After his letter[1] to me of the 29th April, 1869, I might have known that he was not likely to do anything which might appear as if he owned himself in the wrong. This letter, indeed, showed how annoyed Mr. Lowe was at my having seen that most malicious report to the Treasury by Dr. Graham, which has been the cause of your having been so unjustly dealt with, to the ruin, in a great measure, of your prospects in life. Dr. Lyon Playfair at the time threatened that if I moved to inquire into the management of the Mint, he would move that that report be laid on the table of the House. This would not have deterred me, as the report _itself_ would have been the best refutation of the _insinuation_ it contained that you were dismissed because you were guilty of the Mint practice of purloining gold (whereas the note[2] relieving you from further attendance stated that the short work at the Mint was the cause). Dr. Graham did not, he said, believe the insinuation, and to show that he did not believe it, although he had sent in the report to the Treasury, he authorised me to offer you the situation (at an increased salary) filled by Mr. Goodwin, who was to be retired, which of course you refused as being far inferior to the one you held; and in further proof he wrote you that handsome testimonial[3] which I read to the House of Lords.

[Footnote 1: See page 196.]

[Footnote 2: See page 186.]

[Footnote 3: See page 198.]

The report, however, _had served its purpose_ in preventing you from being appointed to an office in the Mint.

I am sure Dr. Graham regretted that he had been induced by his brother, whose animus against you was known throughout the Mint, to send in such a report to the Treasury. Dr. Lyon Playfair’s threat, as I have said, would not have deterred me from moving for a committee to inquire into the malpractices of the Mint, but I confess that I had great scruples in regard to Dr. Graham himself. I shall never forget the expression of his face, and the fearful agitation the mention of my intention always caused.

I confess I did hesitate to place a man of Dr. Graham’s great scientific attainments in such a position as an inquiry would have done, seeing also that his brother was just dead, and that I knew individually Dr. Graham was in no way implicated in the malpractices which formerly prevailed in the Mint; for, as you know, Dr. Graham had soon after his appointment set to work to clear out that “Augean stable,” which, with your assistance, he had almost accomplished till in an evil moment he appointed his brother, to whose intemperate habits I referred in the House of Lords,[4] to a responsible office in the Mint.

Dr. Graham’s death following so soon after that of his brother, I was greatly rejoiced at having delayed bringing the subject of the Mint before Parliament, because I should have felt that I had been to some extent instrumental in hastening that event by drawing attention to the state of that Department.

On the occasion of the reading to me, by Dr. Lyon Playfair, of that wicked report to the Treasury (to which I have previously alluded), in the presence of Dr. Graham and of Mr. C. W. Fremantle, I urged, as Dr. Graham exculpated you from all blame _insinuated_ by the report, that in common justice you should be reinstated in some office in the Mint, you having, with my advice, refused the position offered by Dr. Graham through me, when Mr. Fremantle remarked as a reason against your being appointed that “you were so unpopular with the officials;” such unpopularity being in my opinion the natural result of the work you had done at the request of Dr. Graham, and in the service of the Mint. I say the work you had done, and use the expression on the authority of Dr. Graham, copies of whose letters to the Treasury are now in my possession, and in which he distinctly states that to you mostly were due the reforms. There is no doubt, therefore, but that you were exceedingly unpopular just in the sense that a detective would be amongst the “light-fingered gentry,” and had I obtained the committee for which I moved I could have shown the true grounds of your unpopularity. I have collected some further valuable information showing the necessity for a rigid and full inquiry into the affairs of the Mint, which will show that the officials of a public department are not justified in putting into the hands of a young and rising member of the House of Lords statements which are not only erroneous, but absolutely false, so that Lord Lansdowne was obliged to declare that “he had on a previous occasion overstated the amount in regard to the profit on silver;”[5] but again was he grossly misled by the Mint officials when he stated “that there was a gain of £5,000 per annum on the silver coinage”[6] (a considerable reduction on the former statement) while the _return_ showed a positive and very great loss. It would appear that the Mint officials mystify him, and that _he_, not _I_, confuse two things.

[Footnote 4: See page 197.]

[Footnote 5: See page 146-148.]

[Footnote 6: See page 148-149.]

I alluded in the House to a job by Mr. Lowe in appointing Mr. Roberts, and Lord Lansdowne in reply stated that Mr. Roberts was a _very eminent chemist_ who had proved his capability by “_devising_ a system for depriving brittle gold of the obnoxious properties on which I recently commented.” Have you heard that the plan has been tried and found to be a complete failure!!! I am also informed that Mr. Roberts _did not devise_ the process in question, but that it was invented by a really eminent chemist, who did not make the inquiry with a view to its application under the circumstances which arise in the Mint, where operations are conducted on so large a scale. The process is described in the British Association Reports for 1848, and more fully in the _Philosophical Magazine_ for 1850.

I have just received the Report of the Deputy-Master of the Mint, on European Mints, which I have only had time to glance over. The report is evidently framed with a view of meeting the allegations I made on the appointment of the commission. It would appear, moreover, that Mr. Fremantle and his colleagues have made a _very careful study of your book_!!! which might have been done without the pleasant trip. For the general public the reports are interesting as showing how foreign mints are worked, but as far as the management of the English Mint is concerned, and how a department which is a serious expense to the country, and from which no one but the Bank of England and the employés derive any profit, can be made, as it ought to be, a source of revenue, the report does not show. I see it is proposed to build new offices, “so constructed as to diminish facilities for peculation!!” I think the real question is, would it not be better TO COIN BY CONTRACT—this might be tried, at all events for a time, before the new offices are commenced.

I almost fear this Mint question will not be taken up in the House of Commons, as members are afraid to “tackle” Mr. Lowe, and in these fearfully excited times the subject is _too dry_ for members to interest themselves in; but I cannot understand how a Government bent on economy and reforming abuses in the several Departments can allow such wasteful extravagance and useless losses to go on, unless indeed Mr. Lowe is dreaded as much at the Council Board as in the House of Commons.

Believe me,
Dear Mr. Ansell,
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) KINNAIRD.

To G. F. Ansell, Esq.,
27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, London, W.C.

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.

Influential friends have advised me to issue the present as the _third_ edition of “The Royal Mint” on the ground that a Treatise on Coining which I wrote, at the request of Mr. Graham, for “Tomlinson’s Cyclopædia,” of which Mr. Tomlinson allowed me to have a hundred copies printed and bound separately for private circulation, was really the first edition of the more extended work I have recently published. The copies of that first edition were soon absorbed: indeed, owing to the fact that there is little literature in relation to the Royal Mint, I was flattered by foreign governments and foreign mints seeking from me copies of that book. Such applications gave me pleasure, and as far as I was able I complied with the requests preferred, except in the case of the Spanish mint, for which institution Mr. Graham asked of me a copy when, unfortunately, I had parted with the last at my disposal. I was further gratified by the fact that the Imperial Government of France sought permission to translate this book into French, with a view to give a copy to each workman in the mints of that nation.

Under considerable pressure I re-wrote the book above spoken of for public use, but omitted to style it, as I should have done, the _second_ edition. This, in its turn, was most kindly received by those whose opinions I value in both Houses of Parliament, as well as by those who understand in an especial degree the subject of which I treated; and I have reason to know that it has found its way to all, even the most distant, parts of the world. It was produced, but not replied to, by Ministers in both Houses of Parliament, and remains yet uncontradicted (see page 198); indeed, I may assume that it has been officially confirmed; for on the motion of the Right Honourable Lord Kinnaird, returns were made to the House of Lords, which are verbatim copies of some of the most damaging pages in my book up to and inclusive of the dates then reached (see pages 91, 97, 102, 133, 135, 197-8). I say thus much in gratitude, for the subject I have chosen is one which could hardly have induced me to expect for it so generous a reception. I wrote it hoping only that the public would acquaint themselves with the manner in which one of the principal Departments of the Government was and is conducted. Lord Kinnaird, in the letter which he has done me the honour to write, and permits me to print in these pages, expresses an opinion—one that is largely entertained—that Mr. Fremantle and his fellow-travellers to European mints are greatly indebted to my books for the information on which they found their opinions, as expressed in the reports on foreign mints. For their own sakes as well as for the benefit of the nation, I would that those gentlemen had followed in their entirety my suggestions, because such a course would have enabled them to avoid those difficulties which beset them, and pitfalls into which they will stumble in the carrying out the designs expressed in these reports on European mints; these I will discuss in the fitting place, but here I desire to thank those gentlemen for such attention as they have given to my opinions.

The leading newspapers and periodicals have reviewed or noticed the books in a kindly spirit, with but one exception, in which the writer without refuting one statement indulged in personalities. To those gentlemen of the Press who have spoken candidly and generously, I offer my best thanks. I have endeavoured to correct the faults they pointed out—unless, indeed, where principle was concerned; and, in deference to the expressed opinions of some of my reviewers, I, now that a new edition is called for, publish, by his Lordship’s authority, a letter which I wrote to Lord Kinnaird at his Lordship’s request, giving a history of my dissociation from the Mint, in which, I hope, will be found evidence confirming the statements I make throughout the book.

I do not attempt to disguise the fact that I consider myself to have been seriously wronged both by Mr. Thomas Graham and by the Treasury, still I consider, wisely or unwisely, that my personal grievances are of less interest to the public than is the principle involved. I, however, deem it right to invite attention now to the subject of my complaint,—fully set forth in the Appendix,—because it is illustrative of the treatment a public servant will surely receive if he should follow the intimation conveyed by the present Government, and, neglecting the fact of his own relative position, fulfil the duties of his office as he would do if the matter in hand were one of personal concern. The Government of the Right Honourable W. E. Gladstone, from their bench in the House of Commons, promised that “if each in his especial sphere would faithfully fulfil the duties required in his department irrespective of his nominal position,” “such public servant should be duly rewarded:”—the Ministers might have added, and would have so added had they been candid, “with immediate discomfort and by ultimate dismissal, and that justice would be sought at _their_ hands by such public servant in vain!”

The effect of a rule which obliges Ministers to support the “head of a Department” “_under any and all circumstances_,” will be apparent to all evenly balanced minds; and I from my own knowledge, without fear of contradiction—except, indeed, official denial, which is now so perfectly understood—state that the man who best succeeds in a Government office is he who does unreasoningly and undoubtingly just what he is told to do, and avoids giving offence to his superior officers by pointing out any irregularity or improvement.

Upon the publication by Mr. Thomas Graham of the malevolent report he had written to the Treasury, I, when that fact was made known to me, obtained a high opinion, and in pursuance of advice then given, it was my intention to proceed by action at law against Mr. Graham for libel, but his early death made that step impossible.

With regard to the publication of the correspondence, it is right that I should say that Lord Kinnaird had not intended to draw attention to my case; but, when his Lordship found that the Marquess of Lansdowne and His Grace the Duke of Argyll led off against me in the House of Lords, as the Right Honourable Robert Lowe had done most bitterly in the House of Commons on the previous Friday, he with great generosity threw off the natural reluctance he had entertained to hurting the feelings of Mr. Graham’s friends, and defended me with words and documents so nobly that I can never sufficiently thank his Lordship, or fittingly acknowledge the indebtedness I thereby incurred.

To Mr. Lowe, Lord Lansdowne, and the Duke of Argyll must be attributed any pain which may arise to the friends of Mr. Graham, for Lord Kinnaird desired to spare them; for myself, however, I would say that if either of the Ministers named had obligingly pointed out any presumedly false statement contained in the book which has so far excited their anger, and proved its untruthfulness, instead of saying hard words of the Author, I should have been less mindful of the sage instructions given on a celebrated occasion to an eminent Advocate, “It is a weak case, bully the counsel.”

Some of my readers will perhaps consider that the following pages are overlaid with a strong personal feeling, and may therefore feel disposed to lay the book aside. To such I would remark that it is impossible to follow a pursuit of any kind earnestly, unless it be made a matter of undivided interest. Besides, it must not be forgotten that I was invited to go to the Mint solely on the ground of my known determination to resist abuses. Having devoted fifteen years to the subject of the Mint, it is not to be supposed that I can view its mismanagement with less concern now than I did when selected for appointment to that Department, that I might repress irregularities which were then known to exist, and which appear to have been as yet uneradicated.

With such remarks, I invite a perusal of my new edition by such members of the legislature as are really desirous of reforming the abuses which exist in the Royal Mint.

PREFATORY LETTER TO THE FIRST EDITION.

TO
THOMAS GRAHAM, ESQ., F.R.S.,
MASTER OF THE MINT, ETC. ETC.

SIR,

I have written a short article for “Tomlinson’s Cyclopædia,” for the purpose of explaining (as far as the limited space at my disposal would allow) some of the details of the process of Coining, and by permission of Mr. Tomlinson I am allowed to have a few copies of that article printed separately for private circulation.

I take advantage of this opportunity to acknowledge most gratefully that the information I have been so fortunate as to obtain on the subject of Coining has been gained in consequence of the opportunities you have afforded me in my position in the Royal Mint. With heart-felt thanks for the privileges you have accorded me, and for the support you have given me,

I beg to remain, Sir,
Your most faithful servant,
GEO. F. ANSELL.

ROYAL MINT, _August, 1862_.

PREFATORY LETTER TO THE SECOND EDITION.

27, Bernard Street, Russell Square, London, W.C.,
_November 8th, 1869_.

MY LORD,

I have ventured to ask permission to dedicate this book to your Lordship, as a mark of my sense of the great kindnesses you have been pleased to show to me through a series of years. As you, my Lord, will perhaps permit me to remind you, generous efforts have been made by many with a view to reinstate me in a position of which they and you consider me to have been unjustly deprived—an opinion, I believe, your Lordship has formed from a knowledge of all the facts.

The recent death of Mr. Thomas Graham puts an end to any personal feeling between him and myself, whoever was right or whoever was wrong, or even if there were faults on both sides, the matters which caused a severance are better forgotten—our differences are beyond human adjustment.

The information I have attempted to give in the following pages is given solely with a view to throw as much light as is possible upon a subject which is now attracting very considerable attention, and which has become of national importance.

It will be to me a great pleasure if I may thus express the gratitude I feel for the valuable assistance I have received from your Lordship during a time of great trial and anxiety.

I have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship’s most faithfully obliged and humble servant,
GEORGE F. ANSELL.

To the Right Hon. Lord Kinnaird, K.T., F.R.G.S.,
Lord-Lieutenant of Perthshire, &c. &c. &c.

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

Perhaps it will be well that I should give a brief outline of the circumstances antecedent to and attending my association with the Royal Mint, because the facts and opinions which will be given in the following pages appear to require such a notice, that their worth or worthlessness may be estimated at its true value, as well as that the sources of my information, and the modes of obtaining it, may be in the hands of my readers.

In the early part of the year 1856 the Master of the Mint found himself so beset with difficulties arising from irregularities committed by those who should have supported him, that he formed a determination to engage a person who should be indisputably a faithful and intelligent officer in the Coining Department, and who at the same time had sufficient personal influence to check those irregularities which he knew were taking place, but which were beyond his personal supervision. These irregularities were known to the Government of that period, and had caused so vast an expense that that Government, which was presided over by Lord Palmerston, had intimated to the Master, that unless the Mint could be conducted more satisfactorily and economically, it would be broken up as an Imperial establishment, and thus necessitate the placing of the coinage in the hands of contractors. With this view papers were printed and issued to various firms; but Mr. Graham, being very sincere and energetic in his desire to so conduct the Mint as that this necessity should not arise, sought the advice of engineers and others, with a view to finding such a man as combined within himself the qualities which he saw to be necessary. Finally, by the advice of Dr. A. W. Hofmann, he called upon me at my residence in October, 1856, and related to me in detail the facts above alluded to, and explained precisely the position of affairs at the Mint, giving me the names of the troublesome persons, and showing his own position to be so intolerable, that without some one on whom he could rely, it would be impossible for him to continue his Mastership. Mr. Graham then proceeded to tell me what had passed between Dr. Hofmann and himself as to my fitness for the work required, and explained clearly the impossibility of placing me in a secure position or in high office at first, but that if I would accept a supernumerary clerkship temporarily, he would, when I had effected the object of his desires, advise my promotion to the office then held by Mr. W. T. Brande, when that office should become vacant. With this understanding I agreed to accept the position proposed if duly appointed; but that I might be able to carry out such reforms as were necessary, I insisted on sufficient power being given to me by himself or by the Government. In pursuance of this agreement, Mr. Graham recommended my appointment in a letter to the Treasury, dated 29th October, 1856, in the following terms:—

“I desired to introduce a young man, recommended by scientific and technical information available in coining, by energy of character, and by tried ability in the supervision of workmen—a faculty by no means common. After applying to Mr. William Fairbairn and to Mr. George Rennie, who both recommended candidates, and making inquiry in various other quarters, I have been led to propose the name of Mr. George Frederick Ansell as temporary clerk. Mr. Ansell was educated under Dr. Hofmann, and acted for some years as his laboratory assistant. He has since been Scientific Director in the Panopticon, Leicester Square, which was lately broken up. He appears to be a person of superior education and ability, and great activity and vigour of character, and, as I have been assured, has shown much discretion in the management of both pupils and workmen.”

In accordance with this recommendation I was appointed to a supernumerary clerkship, and took office in the Rolling Room of the Royal Mint; but before doing so I particularly inquired of Mr. Graham, in the presence of Mr. W. H. Barton, the then Deputy-Master, what authority I should have, and how far I should be supported if I attempted to enforce obedience, and whether I was at liberty to call for statements and examine original documents and books. He verbally authorised me to examine such books as I wished to examine, and desired Mr. Barton to give me such statements or information as I might ask for; and as to my authority, he said, “If you order the men to dance a hornpipe on the table, they shall do it, and all orders shall pass through your hands.” With such power, and a salary of £120 a year, or rather £10 a month, I took office on the 12th November, 1856.

My personal experience of men and manners in the Mint is recorded in another book, but in this I feel it right to adhere rigidly to explanations of the processes of coining, and to treat of the expense and loss attending the manipulation of the precious metals; and in the latter pages I will demonstrate what formerly was, and what should be, the cost of producing a coined sovereign, each statement being the result of actual experience, and capable of proof.

THE ROYAL MINT.

Coining is the term applied to the processes employed in the manufacture of money. It is proposed to describe the present mode of manufacture; but it may be as well to state, that in remote periods money was made by cutting out a piece of metal somewhat of the form of the intended coin, and imparting the device to it by the blow of a sledge-hammer. For this purpose the blank piece of metal was laid upon a die, say the obverse, fixed into a block of wood or stone, supposed to have been so large as to absorb the vibration caused by the blow, and to a great extent prevent the quivering which would naturally arise, and cause unsteadiness. The workman then took the other die, say the reverse, and passing it through a folded sheet of lead, in order to avoid the shock to the hand, he placed the engraved part on the blank, which was resting on the lower die, and held it firmly while another workman struck it with a sledge-hammer. It is worthy of remark that a piece of lead such as that described is in the Museum of Dies at the Royal Mint; and although its surface, by the action of the atmosphere and other causes, is now converted into carbonate of lead, indentations caused by the tips of the workman’s fingers are evident. This piece is believed to have been used with a die of Edward IV. At a later period the upper die was held in a twisted hazel stick. After each blow the dies were what is technically termed locked together; that is, the lower and upper dies were made to fit into the partly-formed coin, so that neither die could turn without turning the whole mass, and then a second or third blow was given, till the coin was completed. An improvement on this method was effected by fitting the two dies into rods of iron, which may be represented as a pair of tongs; the flat parts which are used to take a coal would then be the position occupied by the dies. This plan saved the operator some risk of bruised fingers, but the process was essentially the same as the original one; and to money produced by either means was applied the term _hammered_ money, in contradistinction to _milled_ money; that is, money which was made from blanks obtained from fillets which had been rolled in a very rough kind of rolling mill, driven by horse power—the germ from which sprang the present machinery. On this point it is perhaps of interest to quote a passage from the Report made to the Lords of the Treasury in 1695 by Mr. William Lowndes, who says:—“All the moneys we have now in England, both gold and silver, are reducible to two sorts, one stamped with the hammer, and the other pressed with an engine called the mill. The gold or silver of the hammered money is first cast from the melting-pot into long bars, those bars are cut with shears into several square pieces of exact weight for sovereigns, angels, crowns, half-crowns, shillings, &c. Then with tongs and hammer they are forged into a round shape, after which they are blanched (that is, made white or refulgent by nealing or boiling), and afterwards stampt or impressed with an hammer to make them perfect money. This method of making money with the hammer (as appears in the said red book) was practised in the reign of King Edward the first” [the book referred to is in the Exchequer] “and this kind of hammered money continued through all the reigns of succeeding Kings and Queens till about the year of our Lord 1663, when by several warrants and command of the King, Charles the Second: to wit, by one warrant, dated the fifth of November, 1662; one warrant, dated the eighth of April, 1663; and a third warrant, dated the twenty-fourth of December, 1663; the other sort, called _milled money_, was first fabricated to be current in England in this manner: first, the gold or silver is cast out of the melting-pot into long flat bars, which bars are drawn through a mill (wrought by a horse), to produce the just thickness of guineas, half-guineas, crowns, half-crowns, shillings, &c. Then with forcible engines called _cutters_, which answer exactly to the respective sizes or dimensions of the money to be made, the round pieces are cut out from the flat bar, shaped as aforesaid (the residue whereof, called sizel, is melted again), and then every piece is weighed and made to agree exactly with the intended weight, and afterwards carried to other engines (wrought secretly), which put the letters upon the edges of the larger silver pieces, and mark the edges of the rest with a graining. The next thing is the blanching, performed as above; and at last every piece is brought to the press, which is called the _mill_ (wrought of the strength of men), and there receives the impression, which makes it perfect _milled_ money.”

The processes now used are as elaborate as the old methods were simple; but considering the requirements of the present day, and the enormous quantity of money produced, it must not be expected that our coins will, for depth of engraving, bear comparison with those of the Romans, who, though succeeding in producing finished works of art, seem to have forgotten the wear and tear to which they would be subjected, and so left them, as a rule, free from a protecting edge; hence they would lose their image and superscription at a far earlier date from their birth or manufacture than would well-made coins of the present period.

It was formerly believed that gold could be sent to the Mint to be coined free of charge to the importer; such, however, was not the case. By the Act 33 Victoria, cap. 10, several Acts relating to the coinage are repealed, and all persons[7] obtain the right to send gold to the Mint to be coined on the following terms:—

“8. Where any person brings to the Mint any gold bullion,
such bullion shall be assayed and coined, and delivered
out to such person, without any charges for such assay or
coining, or for waste in coinage. Provided that (1)—If
the fineness of the whole of the bullion so brought to the
Mint is such that it cannot be brought to the standard
fineness under this Act of the coin to be coined thereout
without refining some portion of it, the Master of the Mint
may refuse to receive, assay, or coin such bullion. (2)
Where the bullion so brought to the Mint is finer than the
standard fineness under this Act of the coin to be coined
thereout, there shall be delivered to the person bringing
the same such additional amount of coin as is proportionate
to such superior fineness. No undue preference shall be
shown to any person under this section, and every person
shall have priority according to the time at which he
brought such bullion to the Mint.”

The standard for gold is fixed by the new Act at “Twenty-two carats fine and two carats of alloy in the pound weight troy”—the same that was specified in the 3rd Edward VI., 35th Elizabeth, 2nd Charles I., and 18th Charles II. Silver is maintained at the former standard of “Eleven ounces two pennyweights fine silver and eighteen pennyweights of alloy in every pound weight troy.” Until the passing of this Act silver was coined under that of George III., which repealed the Act 18 Charles II., as regards the coining of silver free of charge. The Act 33 Victoria, cap. 10, repeals that of George III., but fails to make provision for the coining of silver, which is therefore now coined under the Common Law; yet the new Act specifies the weight and fineness of the silver coinage. The omission was made because the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it “unfair to introduce silver to this Act as it is a source of revenue;” a little later I will examine this statement.[8]

The Bank of England is practically the only “importer” of bullion to the Mint, and by coinage makes a considerable profit merely from its exceptional circumstances. By its charter and by Act of Parliament it is compelled to keep a stock of bullion equivalent to the excess of its authorised issue of notes—such authorised issue being secured by “Government debt” and “other securities”—which at the present time is fifteen millions; and gold, when at the Mint for coining, is esteemed as being still at the Bank. By the Act 7 and 8 Victoria, cap. 32, section 4, the Bank of England is compelled to purchase bullion, previously melted and assayed at the cost of the seller, at the rate of £3 17_s._ 9_d._ per ounce of standard gold, paying for it in Bank of England notes. Assuming that all the gold thus purchased is coined, the Bank makes a profit[9] of about £2,000 on each million. When its authorities desire to coin gold they give notice at the Mint, and subsequently send at stated intervals “importations” of say 200 ingots of gold, each weighing about 180 ounces, and previously assayed. Upon the arrival of these ingots at the Mint, they are taken to an office, where, in the presence of an officer from the Bank of England, a small piece is cut from each ingot, and hammered out into a kind of strip. This piece is then put into a paper marked with a letter which corresponds with the mark or letter on the individual ingot from which it was taken. This having been effected for each ingot, the pieces are forwarded with their respective ingots to the Mint Office, where their weight is determined and compared with that charged by the Bank of England. The pieces which have been hammered out and placed in a marked packet are called the “assay pieces.” The assay pieces are sent to the resident assayer in the Mint, who estimates and reports to the Master the amount of pure gold in each ingot. The report of the resident assayer is then submitted to the Bank authorities, and if they find it to agree with their own assayer’s report, the ingots are retained for operations in the Mint. When it is desired to get the ingots of gold into a form fit for coining, they have to be alloyed with copper, or fine gold must be added, so as to bring them to standard or crown gold, which consists of 22 parts of pure gold and 2 parts of alloy, or 91·66 per cent. of gold and 8·33 per cent. of copper in 100 parts. Copper is usually employed because it is cheaper, and forms a harder alloy than silver.

[Footnote 7: See page 169.]

[Footnote 8: See pages 126, 144-156.]

[Footnote 9: See pages 126-127, 168.]

Supposing there are 100 ingots, having a total weight of 18,000 oz., and by assay it has been found that they contain 17,900 oz. of pure gold, it is required to bring them to the standard fixed by law. A rule-of-three sum tells how much alloy or how much gold is to be added. So, if 22 parts of pure gold require 2 parts of alloy, how much alloy will 17,900 parts require? The fourth term of the following proportion, viz., as 22:2::17,900:1,627·027, will show how much is to be added; but since there are already 100 oz. of alloy present, as indicated by the fact that 18,000 oz. contain within themselves only 17,900 oz. of pure gold, it is only necessary to add the excess required, viz., 1,527·027, so that these 100 ingots will produce 19,527·027 oz. of standard gold. Had the ingots been found to contain more alloy than is required, it would have been necessary to add so much pure gold as would have rendered the whole standard. The proportions of the metals having been determined, the whole mass is divided so as to make about 1,200 oz. of gold and alloy for each melting-pot. In practice it is customary to take the estimated amount of gold in a given number of ingots, and add so much alloy, or so much pure gold, as shall bring those ingots to standard, the whole weight being generally about 1,200 oz.; this is called _potting_ the ingots. Ingots are almost invariably melted, and cast into bars for sovereigns.

I must here mention that the various illustrations I have introduced were originally used for the article “COINING” in TOMLINSON’S “CYCLOPÆDIA,” and the permission to use them here has been generously granted to me by _Messrs. Virtue and Co._, whose property they are.

In the illustrative engravings, the initial letters used to indicate the different parts are made to take their places in accordance with the order in which the various parts of the machine under description come into play, so that by tracing out the alphabet in any figure, the reader will see the consecutive action of the parts of the machine he is studying.

Fig. 1 represents the arrangements for melting the ingots with their alloy, for producing standard gold. In the Mint there are seven furnaces: each furnace, A, is 12 inches square and 24 inches deep to the top of the bars, which are seen at the ash-pit B. The pot C is made of a mixture of Stourbridge clay and plumbago, hence called a _plumbago pot_; it is 9¼ inches deep, and 7 inches across at the top inside. The pot, previously annealed, is placed in the furnace on a _bottom_ which stands upon the two centre bars. The bottom is intended to shelter the base of the pot C from the stream of air which is necessary to the combustion of the fuel, but which would damage the pot. The pot is then covered by its muffle and lid, and surrounded by fuel, which, as it burns up, warms and then heats the pot to redness, but so gradually that there is no great risk of breaking the pot. When the pot has become of a full red heat, the ingots are carefully placed in it, and the alloy is added by means of the funnel I: the pot is then covered up, and allowed to remain till the whole mass of metal has liquefied. The foreman then stirs it with a rod made of the same substance as the pot, and allows it to remain till the fluid mass has reached a peculiar temperature, known by experience as that at which the metal, when poured into a mould, forms the most solid and workable bar. This temperature having been gained, the two outside bars at B are removed, the ash-pit is then covered to protect the men’s feet, and the firing poked out. The lid and muffle are next removed from the pot, and the pot lifted by an assistant from the furnace by the crane D. The foreman then conveys the pot C, by means of a pair of tongs which clasp it, to the frame of moulds, when an assistant brings forward a loop of iron, suspended by a chain and cord from the roof of the building, and passing the loop of iron over a button on the end of the lower clamp of the tongs, as shown at E, F, supports the weight of the pot by the cord, as indicated at G. Previously to the melting, pieces of charcoal are placed at the bottom of the pot for the purpose of reducing any oxide that may be present in the alloy—and Dr. Percy has found that copper can dissolve 13·50 per cent. of oxide of copper—because oxide of copper, when dissolved in standard gold, frequently renders the mass so brittle that when the bars produced are passed between the rollers they crack and break, just as does gold containing minute quantities of lead or zinc. The influence of oxide of copper on standard gold was thus very marked in 1859, when a large proportion of the gold was so brittle, that if a bar were dropped on the floor, or tapped with a hammer, it broke, just as heated brass breaks under similar circumstances. Mr. Richard Smith had some years since pointed out that if copper in which oxide of copper is dissolved be poured through an atmosphere of coal gas, all the oxide is reduced. I therefore submitted this gold to the process thus suggested to reduce all the oxide of copper, and produced bars so tough that they could not be broken by a sledge hammer unless after repeated bending by that means. Yet this gold was not thus cured of its brittleness, but was treated peculiarly, as will be seen in a future place.[10]

[Footnote 10: See pages 50-53.]

When the metal is fused, the charcoal which was placed at the bottom is brought to the surface by stirring, and as it rises through the fluid alloy, reduces the oxide of copper, and remains on the surface to protect the alloy from the action of atmospheric oxygen. In order to prevent it from falling into the moulds, the assistant holds a piece of stick at the mouth of the pot, thus allowing the gold to pass, but stopping the charcoal. The foreman, in the case of gold, judges almost wholly by the eye, but in the case of silver by the ear, as to when the moulds are filled. The metal poured from each pot forms four bars. The moulds H are made of iron, cast into such a form that each piece viewed from the top has the form of the letter =T=, so that three pieces placed together form two moulds; the whole of the set is held in its position by cross-bars, L, which fit into notches cut in the main frame M, where will be seen two powerful screws by which the moulds are forced tightly together after the cross-bars L are fixed. J represents the pots placed so as to be kept dry and ready for use; K, the wheels and tram on which the frame of moulds runs. The whole of the set of moulds having been filled, the screws at M are loosened, the bars, L, removed, and the parts of the several moulds removed, so that the bar in each mould is exposed to view. The workman takes each bar as it is exposed by a pair of tongs, and plunges it into a cistern of cold water to insure rapid cooling, and then places it on a bench, where the bars produced from each pot are separated and marked with a number, to indicate the pot from which they were poured, and the entire set with letters, to indicate the day on which the melting took place. After these distinctive marks have been placed on the bars, two assay pieces are taken from the bars from each pot.

As silver melting,[11] when discreetly conducted, is slightly different in some of its details, it will be well to describe it here. In Fig. 2, A indicates the furnace with the front removed, to exhibit the internal arrangements. The furnace is circular, and is 21·5 inches across, and 31 inches deep. The bars, which are represented by dotted lines, are removable at will. The _bottom_ B stands on the centre bars, just as in the case of gold melting: it is filled with coke dust, which retains any silver issuing from a small accidental crack or pin-hole in the pot, and also offers a non-conducting medium for the pot C to rest upon, it being necessary to avoid the abstraction of heat by the current of air against the base of the pot. A muffle, D, is placed on the pot, and upon this muffle the lid E rests. The pot is circular, and provided with a lip, to facilitate the pouring of the metal; it is made of wrought-iron, 12 inches across at the top, and 15 inches deep, and when melting for florins is charged with 4,800 ounces of silver. As in the case of gold, so with silver, the metal is alloyed with copper; standard silver being composed of 222 parts of pure silver and 18 parts of copper in 240 parts, or 92·50 parts of silver and 7·50 of copper in 100 parts.[12] The calculations based on the assays from ingots are just the same as in the case of gold. The ingots are put into the pot, and the lid is placed on the muffle (which is intended to prevent metal from falling over the top of the pot during the process of fusion, as sometimes might happen when _scissel_[13] is melted), and the furnace is then closed, so that the air enters through the bars, and passes into the chimney through the flue F. The lid of the furnace G is provided with peep-holes, by which the temperature can be regulated at will, while they also admit of a survey of the state of the furnace. When the fusion is complete, and carried so far as to raise the fluid metal to the necessary temperature, the bars of the furnace, with the exception of those which support the pot, are removed, and the fuel is poked out, because the pot at this temperature is so soft that it would be _torn_ if it were pulled through the fuel. The lid and muffle are next taken off by tongs, and the crane is swung round by the handle, H, till its tongs are brought over the furnace, when, by working the handle I, the tongs J are lowered till they come to the pot; the foreman then makes them seize the pot, and by a signal gives his order for the raising of the pot from the furnace. Pieces of fuel and iron scaling are knocked off from the pot by the foreman with a brush kept in a crucible of water, indicated by V at the foot of the crane. The crane is then swung round by H, till the pot is over the cradle K, when it is lowered and secured in the cradle by the screw, shown at C. The frame of moulds is now run under the lip of the pot, and the foreman, by means of the handle L, which will be seen to communicate with the wheels M, and the rack N, tilts the pot so that the fluid metal may pour in a good stream into one of the moulds O, until, by the sound, he judges it to be full; he then lowers the pot, while his assistant, who is also watching the filling of the moulds, turns the handle P, which, by the wheel Q fitting into the rack R, moves forward the frame of moulds so far as to allow another mould to come beneath the lip of the pot, to be filled as before. The fluid silver in the melting-pot is covered with charcoal, for the same reason as explained in gold melting, and this is kept back by means of a large piece of charcoal laid at the mouth of the melting-pot. The frame of moulds runs on wheels S, and at T is provided with a rack and pinion, by which the moulds may be moved farther from or nearer to the lip of the pot, which, as it is tilted, is continually altering its relative position to the mouth of the moulds, and would, were it not for this arrangement, pour its metal outside of, or upon the moulds, instead of into them. The moulds are formed of =T= pieces, in the same manner as the moulds for gold, and are secured in their position by the same method, the cross-bars being shown at U. The bars, having been taken from the moulds, are cooled in water, and distinctively marked, as in the case of gold. Assay pieces are cut from them, but in the case of silver three assays are taken from the bars produced from each pot.

[Footnote 11: See pages 129-138.]

[Footnote 12: See pages 3, 73.]

[Footnote 13: This word is explained at page 35.]

The bars for different denominations of coins are proportioned in their width, so as to admit of two rows of blanks being cut from the fillets produced from them. The following statement gives the whole facts concerning bars for each coin, as used in the Royal Mint. It would be well to produce bars of a uniform thickness of 0·50 inch, as such bars may be cast solid, and when cast produce better fillets with half the rolling, without the cost of annealing. There would be also another advantage, for the blanks obtained from the fillets produced from bars 0·50 inch thick would not require annealing, and would thus save the cost of that process, as well as the loss occasioned by it, while the coins produced would wear immeasurably longer in circulation. There are other considerations why this thickness should be at once adopted, as will be shown when the subject of loss by coining is explained.

I am glad to notice that Mr. Fremantle, in his Report on European Mints, proposes to adopt my recommendation, as shown by the following passage, page 9:—

“... It would seem to be a question whether in a newly
organised Mint considerable time and labour might not be
saved by reducing the size of the moulds in which both gold
and silver bars are cast. The result would be that, as
bars would be thinner when first subjected to the process
of rolling, the time now occupied by that process would
be sensibly diminished. It should also be mentioned that
although there is great difficulty in producing sound
castings if the thickness of the bars should be reduced, it
might nevertheless, for the metallurgical reasons which Mr.
Roberts points out, be advisable to make this alteration.”

There is really no “_difficulty_ in producing sound castings if the thickness should be reduced;” but I fear there are many DIFFICULTIES in the Royal Mint itself. Indeed the casting of the bronze bars—whose thickness is less than that I propose for those of gold—gives evidence of the ease with which thinner bars may be produced; yet against _these, insuperable difficulties_ were urged until I experimentally demonstrated how easily they could be cast.

STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS AS REGARDS BARS USED FOR COINING.