Chapter XI: Part 11

Such final loss is indefensible. Yet Lord Lansdowne is led to believe that the seigniorage on silver yields a profit of £5,000 a year (modified from his first statement of £20,000), whereas this return, inclusive of the £27,033 before explained, exhibits a profit of £21,659 in ten years, or of an average of £2,165 per annum. This statement will, however, deceive those who rely on it, for two reasons. The year 1859, as already pointed out, is exceptional; and another return, No. 67, 1870, made to the House of Commons (see page 150) shows that, inclusive of this anomalous gain, the silver coinage has been a source of loss to the country to the exact average amount of 17_s._ 6_d._ on each £100 purchased for coinage. In printing this return I have made it up to 1868, omitting the year 1869, which alone shows a loss of £120,000, and must therefore be an incomplete return. It is to be regretted that the Government refused on two occasions a return of the account of losses on silver manufacture, because such a return would have included loss by assay as well as loss by coining and melting. The refusals were undoubtedly based on fear of exposure, because the return can be given readily—that they can be given, is proved by the fact that I have read the accounts in the bill books at the Mint, and have copies of such entries. Lord Lansdowne was instructed to state that no such accounts are kept. The subterfuge of the Mint Authorities consists in the fact that Lord Kinnaird has not asked for the return in the precise words in which the account is kept; it cannot, however, be again refused if moved for as “transferred from the account of the Mint expenses, for the satisfaction of the Audit Office to account for the waste or loss by coining silver.” If the Mint Authorities will place the bill book of the Royal Mint before me for a few hours, I will compile the table. Such a return would exhibit the fact that in the five years last past, the loss by misplacement and mismanagement exceeds £1,867 3_s._ 10¾_d._ per million coined; it would show that the average amount of loss reaches 3_s._ 9¾_d._ for each £100 coined, such sum being in fact about one-third of the total sum charged by the contractors who conduct the coinage in Paris for France. The contractor for the Paris Mint, in his charge, includes loss of silver by coining, melting, and assay, wear and tear of machinery, wages to workmen for labour, salaries and contingent expenses; and while bearing these charges, he makes a handsome

AN ACCOUNT OF THE SUMS ADVANCED IN EACH YEAR FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF BULLION FOR COINAGE;
AND OF THE SUMS PAID IN EACH YEAR TO THE ACCOUNT OF HER
MAJESTY’S EXCHEQUER AT THE BANK OF ENGLAND, IN REPAYMENT
THEREOF.—(PURSUANT TO ACT 7 WILL. 4, C. 9.)

+-----+------------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| | Amounts Advanced |Amounts Paid into| |
|Date.| from the |the Exchequer, in| Remarks. |
| | Consolidated | Repayment of | |
| | Fund. | Advances. | |
+-----+------------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| |
|1837 | 22,000 0 0 | | |
|1838 | 196,029 19 4 | 168,029 19 4 | |
|1839 | 400,000 0 0 | 350,000 0 0 | |
|1840 | 170,000 0 0 | 175,000 0 0 | |
|1841 | 100,000 0 0 | 135,000 0 0 | |
|1842 | 180,000 0 0 | 162,120 4 0 | |
|1843 | 350,000 0 0 | 265,000 0 0 | |
|1844 | 550,000 0 0 | 501,389 17 0 | |
|1845 | 850,000 0 0 | 678,772 2 9 | |
|1846 | 300,000 0 0 | 429,937 1 11 | |
|1847 | 100,000 0 0 | 217,033 10 2 | |
|1848 | | 18,534 3 1 | As given |
|1849 | 150,000 0 0 | 120,000 0 0 | in detail in |
|1850 | 150,000 0 0 | 120,000 0 0 | previous |
|1851 | 100,000 0 0 | 187,213 1 1 | Returns. |
|1852 | 391,970 0 8 | 191,970 0 8 | |
|1853 | 508,029 19 4 | 550,000 0 0 | |
|1854 | 100,000 0 0 | 200,000 0 0 | |
|1855 | 250,000 0 0 | 300,000 0 0 | |
|1856 | 450,000 0 0 | 450,000 0 0 | |
|1857 | 420,000 0 0 | 350,000 0 0 | |
|1858 | 400,000 0 0 | 400,000 0 0 | |
|1859 | 550,000 0 0 | 650,000 0 0 | |
|1860 | 270,000 0 0 | 150,000 0 0 | |
|1861 | 400,000 0 0 | 550,000 0 0 | |
|1862 | 400,000 0 0 | 350,000 0 0 | |
|1863 | 250,000 0 0 | 250,000 0 0 | |
|1864 | 600,000 0 0 | 630,000 0 0 | |
|1865 | 520,000 0 0 | 460,000 0 0 | |
|1866 | 410,000 0 0 | 510,000 0 0 | |
|1867 | 300,000 0 0 | 250,000 0 0 | |
|1868 | 220,000 0 0 | 200,000 0 0 | |
+-----+------------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 32 |10,058,029 19 4 |9,970,000 0 0 |_Loss_, |
|Years| | |=£88,029 19s. 4d. 17/6=|
| | | |_on the_ =£100= |
+-----+------------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER OF THE MINT.
ROYAL MINT, _18th February, 1870_.

profit, his total sum for all being 15_s._ for each £100 coined. Is it probable that the contractor would tolerate a charge of 3_s._ 9¾_d._ for loss alone out of a total of 15_s._ Since the Government refuses figures, imagination alone can tell what is the loss in the Royal Mint; yet in the face of such facts Mr. Lowe accepts contracts as against the French contractor to whom he sends Commissioners—one of whom experienced “great difficulty in obtaining accurate information with regard to the amount of loss that accrues” on gold and silver—that he may instruct them in the cost of manufacture. Does a banker make known his secrets? He may permit you to stand at his counter and see cheques paid, but “thus far and no farther” is the guiding principle. Mr. Lowe’s contract notions have been already noticed.

To return, then, to facts admitted by the Government, and presented to the House of Lords in obedience to Lord Kinnaird’s motion; the return numbered 30, 1870, clearly demonstrates that there is, under the management of the present officers, and has been for the last five years (see pages 144-145), an average loss by coining of £401, and by melting, of £916, or a total of £1,317 on each million of silver coined. By way of contrast, it should be noticed that this return exhibits the fact that, when the Mint was under my management—between April 1857 and March 1860—the total average loss, under circumstances every way similar, was but £395 4_s._, inclusive of “melting and the losing operations,” for each million of silver coined. Well may the Government refuse a return which, at the smallest possible computation, would EXHIBIT AN UNNECESSARY WASTE TO THE EXTENT OF £922 ON EACH MILLION OF SILVER COINED, OR EXACTLY £3,144 ON THE SILVER CONCERNED IN THE RETURN No. 157, 1869, quoted at page 149.

The unnecessary waste here displayed is not the only reason why silver yields no final profit or seigniorage—and the foregoing statements clearly demonstrate that Lord Kinnaird has not misunderstood the accounts. The great reason of the loss occasioned by the silver coinage, both by manufacture and by seigniorage, is want of knowledge on the part of the Mint officials, for it can require but little argument to show that that which costs 61_d._ and sells for 66_d._, must, if properly manufactured, yield an absolute profit. So, to demonstrate more clearly the exact case, we will take the real cost of the silver for 1868 and see what profit this should have afforded, and then Lord Lansdowne will perhaps explain why the loss arises, for this return (see page 154) is perfectly free from all manufacturing details, and does not include wages, officers’ salaries, or contingent expenses; it simply states the bald fact that so much silver was bought and converted into coined money, and by deducting one from the other there is demonstrated an actual loss of £10,896 12_s._ Now the amount bought was in real intrinsic value £312,252 12_s._, and this produced in coined silver money £301,356. It has been shown in the return now under comment that silver fetched at that period (1859-1868) 61⅜_d._ per ounce, which, expressed in decimals, will be 61·375_d._, and silver, by the Act of Parliament, is so coined as that each ounce is converted into money of a nominal value of 66_d._, such extrinsic value being given to silver because it is a token currency, and as such is a legal tender to the limited extent of £2. The difference, then, between 66_d._ and 61·375_d._ is 4·625; if, therefore, 61·375 gives a profit of 4·625, it follows that 100 should give 7·535; but for the sake of simplicity we will consider this profit as at the rate of 7½ per cent.; then £312,252 12_s._ at 7½ per cent., should yield £23,418 18_s._ 10¾_d._, yet not only was the profit lost, but, in addition, there is a recorded—admitted—loss of £10,896 12_s._, which, added to the loss of profit, brings that total to £34,315 10_s._ 10¾_d._; but that Lord Lansdowne may not be unfairly pressed, Lord Kinnaird expressed willingness to deduct from this sum the amount of loss entailed that year by recoinage (see * below) and which was £18,058 9_s._ 6_d._, leaving thereby an irretrievable loss of exactly £16,257 1_s._ 4¾_d._, on that year alone.

NO. 262.—RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, DATED 30TH MAY, 1870. (MR. AYRTON, PAGE 5.)

_Worn Silver Coin Purchased for Re-coinage._

+----+-----------+-----------------+---------------+---------------+
|Date| Weight. | Nominal Value. |Mint Value at | Loss by |
| | | |5/6 per Ounce. | Re-Coinage. |
+----+-----------+-----------------+---------------+---------------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._|
|1860| 357902·538| 113,000 0 0 | 98,423 3 9 | 14,576 16 3 |
|1861| 308873·077| 97,600 0 0 | 84,940 1 10 | 12,659 18 2 |
|1862| 425591·682| 135,000 0 0 |117,037 14 3 | 17,962 5 9 |
|1863| 324674·838| 102,800 0 0 | 89,285 11 5 | 13,514 8 7 |
|1864| 388388·152| 123,500 0 0 |106,806 14 10 | 16,693 5 2 |
|1865| 292496·983| 93,000 0 0 | 80,436 13 4 | 12,563 6 8 |
|1866| 361280·187| 115,000 0 0 | 99,352 1 0 | 15,647 19 0 |
|1867| 376142·927| 120,000 0 0 |103,439 6 0 | 16,560 14 0 |
|1868| 388878·297| 125,000 0 0 |106,941 10 6 | 18,058 9 6 |
|1869| 325976·928| 105,000 0 0 | 89,643 13 0 | 15,356 7 0 |
+----+-----------+-----------------+---------------+---------------+
| |3550205·609|1,129,900 0 0 |976,306 9 11 |153,593 10 1 |
+----+-----------+-----------------+---------------+---------------+

_The Yearly Average Price paid per Ounce for Silver Bullion purchased in the Market for Coinage in the Years 1860 to 1869, both inclusive, was as follows:—_

+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
|1860.|1861.|1862.|1863.|1864.|1865.|1866.|1867.|1868.| 1869. |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._| _d._ |
| 61¾ | 61½ | 61½ | 61½ | 61¼ | 61 | 61⅞ | 60¾ | 60⅞ | 60⁶/₁₆|
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+

_The amount of Seigniorage paid into the Exchequer in the years 1860 to 1869, has been,—_

+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| 1860. | 1861. | 1862. | 1863. | 1864. |
| | | | | |
+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._|
|27,134 1 8 |4,961 7 5 |11,227 6 2 |211 13 4 |6,160 6 8 |
+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1865. | 1866. | 1867. | 1868. |
| | | | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._|
|57,645 17 9 |28,630 0 5 |4,331 10 7 |18,622 7 4 |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
+--------------+----------------+
| 1869. | Total. |
| | 1860-69. |
+--------------+----------------+
| £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._|
|12,345 4 10 | 171,269 16 2 |
+--------------+----------------+
C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER OF THE MINT.
ROYAL MINT, _31st. May, 1870._

Would Lord Lansdowne like to live on a _profit_ of such a description? Should his lordship still maintain his statement that there is a gain from seigniorage by coining silver, perhaps he will be so good as to explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked last year for £1,000 to “defray the anticipated loss,” as well as £15,000 to pay the expenses of the recoinage, or “keeping the silver up to the required standard.” It has been stated that this return is false—it is surely a grave matter to make a false return to Parliament, in itself a crime which should be inquired into and punished.

The loss thus exhibited is entailed solely because the Master of the Mint habitually wishing to keep things quiet, refuses all Parliamentary enquiry, and contents himself with so-called retrenchment because he deducts £100 a year from the Mint workmen.

A continuation of the return to which Lord Kinnaird drew attention has been presented, No. 262, 1869, signed by Mr. Fremantle. Singular to relate, this is not merely _a continuation_, for it gives information in regard to seigniorage, and Mr. Fremantle has amended the account made by Mr. Graham; thus a return presented to Parliament has been altered by Mr. Fremantle without comment, and now exhibits results directly opposed to those shown for the same years by Mr. Graham. The words at the head of the column are, for some reason which does not appear, also altered, but the “real cost” of metal must mean the same as the “total amount paid” for it. I have, therefore, compiled from each a statement of the profit and loss; but I reproduce the figures presented in the one case by Mr. Thomas Graham, and in the other by Mr. C. W. Fremantle, BOTH RELATING TO THE SAME ACCOUNT, and both supposed to be accurate (see page 154).

It is necessary that I should state that Mr. Graham had been dead more than a year when his accounts were altered, in the manner now to be explained. If _his_ returns were correct, Mr. Fremantle’s must be _incorrect_, or, “adjusted,” as Mr. Roberts would style it. If reference be made to the table on page 154, it will be seen that by the return No. 157, Mr. Graham showed a loss to the extent of £5,373 4_s._ 6_d._ on nine years’ (1860-1868) silver coinage. Now, Lord Kinnaird explained that return fully to the House, and, to prove his accuracy, produced the return No. 30, which will be found on page 150. Considerable astonishment was caused by such facts, but no reply was given. However, it now appears by the return No. 262, which I print under No. 157, and on the same page, that Mr. Fremantle has found the means to convert Mr. Graham’s _loss_ into an absolute GAIN of so large an amount as £1,011,668 2_s._ 0_d._, and _that without any word of explanation_. The returns thus placed together are so contradictory, that I confess I utterly failed to unravel them, and therefore submitted them to more than one banker, several merchants, and, finally, to a professional accountant, not one of whom could suggest a key to the extraordinary process which has been adopted.

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 JANUARY, 1859, TO THE
31ST OF DECEMBER, 1868, &C.,” IN CONTINUATION OF NO. 340,
1867-68. (MR. AYRTON, PAGE 3.)

----+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------
Date| Total Value of | Real Cost or | Profit on | Loss on
| Silver Coined. | Value of Metal.| Coinage. | Coinage.
----+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------
| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._
1860| 218,403 7 0 | 222,981 1 6 | | 4,577 14 6
1861| 209,484 0 0 | 215,029 0 10 | | 5,545 0 10
1862| 148,518 11 10 | 159,948 2 6 | |11,429 10 8
1863| 161,172 0 0 | 171,855 15 0 | |10,683 15 0
1864| 535,194 0 0 | 521,003 5 0 |14,190 15 0 |
1865| 501,732 0 0 | 483,861 13 6 |17,870 6 6 |
1866| 493,416 0 0 | 486,113 15 2 | 7,302 4 10 |
1867| 193,842 0 0 | 195,445 17 10 | | 1,603 17 10
1868| 301,356 0 0 | 312,252 12 0 | |10,896 12 0
----+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------
|2,763,117 18 10 |2,768,491 3 4 |39,363 6 4 |44,736 10 10
----+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------
Deduct Profit, when there remains Absolute Loss 5,373 4 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THO. GRAHAM, MASTER OF THE MINT.
ROYAL MINT, _19th April, 1869_.

NO. 262.—RETURN TO AN ORDER, &C., DATED 30TH MAY, 1870, &c., IN CONTINUATION OF PAPER NO. 157, OF SESSION 1868-9. (MR. STANSFELD, PAGE 3.)

+-------+-------------------+---------------------+
| Date. | Total Value of | Total Amount Paid |
| | Silver Coined. | for Silver Bullion. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------+
| | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._ |
| 1860 | 218,403 7 0 | 141,112 7 11 |
| 1861 | 209,484 0 0 | 100,327 11 0 |
| 1862 | 148,518 11 10 | 51,165 19 11 |
| 1863 | 161,172 0 0 | 53,134 12 7 |
| 1864 | 535,194 0 0 | 445,191 11 9 |
| 1865 | 501,732 0 0 | 416,524 6 9 |
| 1866 | 493,416 0 0 | 282,247 12 6 |
| 1867 | 193,842 0 0 | 181,000 17 11 |
| 1868 | 301,356 0 0 | 80,744 16 6 |
| 1869 | 76,428 0 0 | 135,083 0 11 |
+-------+-------------------+---------------------+
| |2,839,545 18 10 | 1,886,532 17 9 |
+-------+-------------------+----------------------
+-------+--------------------+------------------+
| Date. | Profit on | Loss on Coinage. |
| | Coinage. | |
+-------+--------------------+------------------+
| | £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._ |
| 1860 | 77,290 19 1 | |
| 1861 | 109,156 9 0 | |
| 1862 | 97,352 11 11 | |
| 1863 | 108,037 7 5 | |
| 1864 | 90,002 8 3 | |
| 1865 | 85,207 13 3 | |
| 1866 | 211,168 7 6 | |
| 1867 | 12,841 2 1 | |
| 1868 | 220,611 3 6 | |
| 1869 | | 58,655 0 11 |
+-------+--------------------+------------------+
| | 1,011,668 2 0 (‡‡)| 58,655 0 11 |
+-------+--------------------+------------------+
C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER OF THE MINT.
ROYAL MINT, _31st May, 1870_.

The return contains another enigma. For, whereas Mr. Fremantle, on page 3 of the return in which he has amended Mr. Graham’s figures, exhibits profit to the extent of £1,011,668 2_s._ 0_d._ in place of Mr. Graham’s loss of £5,373 4_s._ 6_d._—but there being a loss of £58,655 0_s._ 11_d._ on his own year’s coinage, the substituted profit(‡‡) must be reduced by that amount, when it will be £953,013 1_s._ 1_d._ Again, page 5, he gives a tabular statement (see page 152), by which he shows that £171,269 16_s._ 2_d._ went to the Exchequer as seigniorage, while the loss by recoinage amounted to £153,593 10_s._ 1_d._, leaving a total profit of £17,676 6_s._ 1_d._ What has become of the difference between this profit and that in the amended return?—a small matter perhaps, but which yet amounts to £917,659 8_s._ 11_d._ in ten years. If it were made it can be shown to have been legitimately disposed of, or is it simply an “official statement,” such as those which public companies have of late so frequently exhibited. If, however, that sum has been realised, why does Mr. Fremantle show separately the amount of seigniorage? There lies below a grave matter for inquiry why a Public Department should place before Parliament an altered account without one word of explanation. If Mr. Graham has put forward a false return, one greatly against himself, it is right that the matter should be investigated. If, on the other hand, Mr. Fremantle has placed figures on paper which have no representatives in coin, it is indeed a grave matter. In either case it goes to prove the necessity for a searching inquiry into the affairs of the Royal Mint.

Lord Kinnaird does not stand alone in his view of the loss by the silver coinage, for Mr. William Miller, late Chief Cashier in the Bank of England, had, years since, arrived at the same conclusion, and produced at that time evidence to prove his statement. By the courtesy of Mr. George Forbes, at present Chief Cashier in the Bank of England, I am in possession of Mr. Miller’s statement (see p. 156): its perusal induces me to wish that Government officials would put forward statements as lucid. Mr. William Miller, in this table, adopts a process which I am assured is entirely legitimate, and by it educes the fact that “_the Government owes the silver coinage a million and a half, and not as an account_.” It is perfectly true that the profit, if made, is not supposed to be placed at interest; but it is also the fact that the profit _has never been realised_, hence the loss of both capital and interest. His calculations are those of an accountant, and by them he argues that if the £6,493,000 of silver coinage had produced its legitimate gain, there would have accrued by it, and the interest thereon, a sum of =£3,880,000= clear profit: he then proceeds to show how that profit has been disposed of. Being himself aware of the amount of loss by worn coins culled from circulation, he states it at £255,000; and estimating the loss on that which remains current, to be eliminated in its turn, at £910,000, shows a loss by wear and tear of £1,165,000. The details for the complete study of this table will be found in page 65, where every information is given in precise figures, while in this he adopts whole numbers, and proceeds to reason out the entire matter. That he may not press the Government, he assumes an extreme rate for the expense of coinage—varying from 2¼ to 3½ per cent., while the real cost is about O·75 per cent.—and adds to that amount the interest thereon, then deducting the total of these sums from the £3,880,000 which should have arisen, he shows a balance £1,411,000 which the Government owes to the silver coinage. While Mr. Miller’s table on page 65 shows an average loss by wear on the silver coinage current since 1816, at the rate of 24·31 per cent. in a hundred years, and on that of George III.—_the most worn_—of 98·34 per cent., the Mint—receiving its culled coin from the Bank of England—states its loss at the rate of 135·93 per cent. in the same period (see return, p. 152).

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 5_s._ 1_d._ an ounce in the new money, there would remain 5d. per ounce as profit to the Government. That 5_d._ would be about 7·57 per Cent. on the amount coined.

7·57 per Cent. on £6,932,000 = £525,000
Compound Interest thereon at
3½ per Cent. for 43 Years, the
true Average Number of Years 1,779,000
as nearly as can be made out --------- 2,304,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.:—
Crowns 141,000
Half-Crowns 1,114,000
Shillings 879,000
Sixpences 81,000
----------
7·57 per Cent. on £2,215,000 = £168,000
==========
Compound Interest at 3½ for 35 Years 392,000
-------- 560,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF WILLIAM IV.:—
Half-Crowns 381,000
Shillings 412,000
Sixpences 282,000
----------
7·57 per Cent. on £1,075,000 = £81,000
=========
Compound Interest at 3½ for 15 years 111,000
-------- 192,000

COINED IN THE REIGN OF VICTORIA:—
Crowns 117,000
Half-Crowns 1,043,000
Florins 1,541,000
Shillings 2,610,000
Sixpences 1,182,000
----------
7·57 per Cent. on £6,493,000 = £492,000
==========
Compound Interest at 3½ for 15 Years 332,000
------
824,000
----------
£3,880,000
==========

LOSS BY WEAR:—
On amount remaining in Circulation £910,000
Ditto withdrawn from Circulation 255,000
-------- £1,165,000

EXPENSES OF COINAGE:—
Crowns and Half-Crowns at 124,000
2¼ per Cent.
Shillings at 205,000
2·85 per Cent. -------
329,000
Compound Interest thereon, 30 Years 594,000
at 3½ per Cent. -------- 923,000

Sixpences at 3¼ per Cent. 80,000
Compound Interest thereon, 26 Years 116,000
at 3¼ per Cent. -------- 196,000

Florins at 2½ per Cent. 39,000
Compound Interest thereon, 5 Years 5,000
at 3¼ per Cent. -------- 44,000

7·57]per Cent. on the amount of Silver
recoined at the Government’s expense 100,000
(£1,316,500) Compound Interest, 41,000
at 3½ per Cent. for Average of 10 Years -------- 141,000
Balance 1,411,000
----------
£3,880,000
==========

I communicate this Statement as my grounds
for the Estimate that the Government owes the
Silver Coinage a million and a half, and not
as an Account.

_December, 1860._ W. MILLER.

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

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

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

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

STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMED IN THE COINING DEPARTMENT BETWEEN OCTOBER 1ST, 1857, AND MARCH 31ST, 1858, INCLUSIVE.

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

IN ROLLING ROOM.
+---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |
+---------------------------+---------------+-----------+----------+
| | | As by | As by |
| | | Rolling | Mint |
| | | Room | Office |
| | | Beam. | Beam. |
+---------------------------+----------------+-----------+---------+
| Bars for Florins. | | | |
| Ounces.| | Ounces. | Ounces. |
| As by Mint } | | | |
| Office Beam. } 761202·00| Florin Fillets | 728342·56 | |
| | | | |
| As by Rolling } 761212·67| ” Ends | 32956·95 | 32956·90|
| Room Beam. } | | | |
| ---------+ +-----------+ |
|Showing a plus } | Deduct }| | |
| difference. } 10·67| “received.” }| 761299·51 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Increase }| | |
| Bars for Shillings. | during work. }| 86·84 | |
| 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 } | Deduct }| | |
| difference. } 4·25| “received.” }| 528681·20 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Increase }| | |
| Bars for Sixpences. | during work. }| 63·95 | |
| | | |
| 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 } | Deduct }| | |
| difference. } 0·54| “received.” }|175669·80 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Increase }| | |
| Bars for Threepences. | during work. }| 24·26 | |
| Ounces.| | | |
| As by Mint } | Threepenny }| | |
| Office Beam. } 33643·00| Fillets. }| 32661·25 | |
| | | | |
| As by Rolling } | Threepenny }| | |
| Room Beam. } 33642·20| Ends. }| 987·55 | 987·55|
| ---------+ +-----------+---------+
|Showing a minus } | Deduct }| | |
| difference. } 0·80| “Received.” }| 33648·80 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Increase }| | |
| | during work. }| 6·60 | 65029·43|
+---------------------------+----------------+-----------+---------+

IN CUTTING ROOM.
-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |
-----------------------------+----------------+----------+---------+
| | As by | As by |
| | Cutting | Mint |
| | Room | Office |
| | Beam. | Beam. |
-----------------------------+----------------+----------+---------+
Fillets for Florins. | | | |
Ounces. | | Ounces. | Ounces. |
As by Rolling } | | | |
Room Beam. } 728342·56| Florin Blanks |433013·65 | |
| | | |
As by Cutting } | | | |
Room Beam. } 728339·29| ” Scissel |295327·34 |295327·98|
----------| |----------| |
Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |
difference. } 3·27| “received.” }|728340·99 | |
| |----------| |
| Increase }| | |
Fillets for Shillings. | during work. }| 1·70 | |
| | | |
Ounces. | | | |
As by Rolling } | | | |
Room Beam. } 504599·40| Shilling Blanks|320518·84 | |
| | | |
As by Cutting } | | | |
Room Beam. } 504598·71| ” Scissel|184117·20 |184117·20|
----------| |----------| |
Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |
difference. } 0·69| “received.” }|504636·04 | |
| |----------| |
| Increase }| | |
Fillets for Sixpences. | during work. }| 37·33 | |
| | | |
Ounces. | | | |
As by Rolling } | Sixpenny }| | |
Room Beam. } 168666·70| Blanks. }|101407·09 | |
| | | |
As by Cutting } | Sixpenny }| | |
Room Beam. } 168666·25| Scissel. }| 67271·99 | 67271·99|
----------| |----------| |
Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |
difference. } 0·45| “received.” }|168679·08 | |
| |----------| |
| Increase }| | |
Fillets for Threepences. | during work. }| 12·83 | |
| | | |
Ounces. | | | |
As by Rolling } | Threepenny }| | |
Room Beam. } 32661·25 | Blanks. }| 19373·13 | |
| | | |
As by Cutting } | Threepenny }| | |
Room Beam. } 32661·25 | Scissel. }| 13293·73 | 13293·73|
--------- | |----------|---------|
Showing no } | Deduct }| | |
difference. } 0·00 | “received.” }| 32666·86 | |
| |----------| |
| Increase }| | |
| during work. }| 5·61 |560010·90|
-----------------------------+----------------+----------+---------+

IN WEIGHING ROOM.
+----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |
+----------------------------+----------------+-----------+--------+
| | | As by | As by |
| | | Weighing | Mint |
| | | Room |Office |
| | | Beam. |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 |Florin Rejected.| 9020·63 | 9020·63|
| --------- + +-----------+ |
|Showing a minus } | Deduct } | | |
| difference. } 3·10 | “received.” } | 433009·06 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Loss during } | | |
| Blanks for Shillings. | work. } | 1·49 | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | | |
| As by Cutting | | | |
| Room Beam. } 320518·84 |Shilling Blanks.| 315492·95 | |
| | | | |
|As by Weighing } | Shilling } | | |
| Room Beam. } 320516·07 | Rejected. } | 5021·79 | 5021·79|
| --------- + +-----------+ |
|Showing a minus } | Deduct } | | |
| difference. } 2·77 | “received.” } | 320514·74 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Loss during } | | |
| Blanks for Sixpences. | work. } | 1·33 | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | | |
| As by Cutting } | Sixpenny } | | |
| Room Beam. } 101407·09 | Blanks. } | 99083·98 | |
| | | | |
|As by Weighing } | Sixpenny } | | |
| Room Beam. } 101406·65 | Rejected. } | 2223·63 | 2223·63|
| --------- + +-----------+ |
|Showing a minus } | Deduct } | | |
| difference. } 0·44 | “received.” } | 101407·61 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Increase } | | |
| Blanks for Threepences. | during work.} | 0·96 | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | | |
| As by Cutting } | Threepenny } | | |
| Room Beam. } 19373·13 | Blanks. } | 19326·87 | |
| | | | |
|As by Weighing } | Threepenny } | | |
| Room Beam. } 19372·96 | Rejected. } | 46·03 | 46·03|
| --------- + +-----------+--------+
|Showing a minus } | Deduct } | | |
| difference. } 0·17 | “received.” } | 19372·90 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Loss during } | | |
| | work. } | 0·06 |16312·08|
+----------------------------+----------------+-----------+--------+

IN ANNEALING ROOM.
+---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |
+---------------------------+---------------+-----------+----------+
| | | As by | As by |
| | | Annealing | Mint |
| | | Room | Office |
| | | Beam. | Beam. |
+---------------------------+---------------+-----------+----------+
| Blanks for Florins. | | | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | Ounces. | Ounces. |
|As by Weighing } | | | |
| Room Beam. } 423988·43 | Florin Blanks | 423606·37 | |
| | | | |
| | Loss of }| | |
|As by Annealing} | Weight by }| | |
| Room Beam. } 423984·25 | Annealing and}| 367·84 | |
| -----------+ Blanching. }| | |
| | +-----------+ |
|Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |
| difference. } 4·18 | “received.” }| 423974·21 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Loss | 10·04 | |
| Blanks for Shillings. | | | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | | |
|As by Weighing } | | | |
| Room Beam. } 315492·95 |Shilling Blanks| 315190·47 | |
| | | | |
| | Loss of }| | |
|As by Annealing} | Weight by }| | |
| Room Beam. } 315490·42 | Annealing and}| 283·86 | |
| -----------+ Blanching. }| | |
| | +-----------+ |
|Showing a minus} 2·53 | Deduct }| 315474·33 | |
| difference. } | “received.” }| | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Loss | 16·09 | |
| Blanks for Sixpences. | | | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | | |
|As by Weighing } | Sixpenny }| | |
| Room Beam. } 99083·98 | Blanks. }| 98980·28 | |
| | | | |
| | Loss of }| | |
|As by Annealing} | Weight by }| | |
| Room Beam. } 99083·67 | Annealing and}| 103·39 | |
| -----------+ Blanching. }| | |
| | +-----------+ |
|Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |
| difference. } 0·31 | “received.” }| 99083·67 | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | Loss | 0·00 | |
| Blanks for Threepence. | | | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | | |
|As by Weighing } | Threepenny }| | |
| Room Beam. } 19326·87 | Blanks. }| 19304·08 |Supply.[123]|
| | | | |
| | Loss of }| | |
|As by Annealing} | Weight by }| | |
| Room Beam. } 19326·72 | Annealing and}| 22·64 | 47·67 |
| -----------+ Blanching. }| | |
| | +-----------+ |
|Showing a minus} | Deduct }| | |
| difference. } 0·15 | “received.” }| 19326·72 | |
| | +-----------+----------+
| | Loss | 0·00 | 47·67 |
+---------------------------+---------------+-----------+----------+

[Footnote 123: See page 162.]

IN PRESS ROOM.
+---------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| RECEIVED. | RETURNED. |
+---------------------------+-----------------+----------+---------+
| | | As by | As by |
| | | Press | Mint |
| | | Room | Office |
| | | Beam. | 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 } | Florin Pyx }| | |
| difference. } 0·00 | 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 } | Shilling }| | |
| Room Beam. } 315190·47 | Brockages. }| 1227·88 | 1228·17|
| -----------+ | | |
|Showing no } | Shilling Pyx }| | |
| difference. } 0·00 | Pieces. }| 107·87 | 107·87|
| | +----------+ |
| | Deduct }| | |
| | “received.” }|315189·39 | |
| | +----------+ |
| |Loss | 1.08 | |
| Blanks for Sixpences. | | | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | | |
|As by Annealing} | | | |
| Room Beam. } 98980·28 | Sixpenny Coin | 98279·81 | 98271·65|
| | | | |
|As by Press } | Sixpenny }| | |
| Room Beam. } 98980·28 | Brockages. }| 678·84 | 678·84|
| -----------+ | | |
|Showing no } | Sixpenny Pyx }| | |
| difference. } 0·00 | Pieces. }| 21·18 | 21·18|
| | +----------+ |
| | Deduct }| | |
| | “received.” }| 98979·83 | |
| | +----------+ |
| |Loss | 0·45 | |
| Blanks for Threepences. | | | |
| | | | |
| Ounces. | | | |
|As by Annealing} | Threepenny }| | |
| Room Beam. } 19304·08 | Coin. }| 19145·45 | 19159·20|
| | | | |
|As by Press } | Threepenny }| | |
| Room Beam. } 19304·08 | Brockages. }| 154·85 | 154·85|
| -----------+ | | |
|Showing no } | Threepenny }| | |
| difference. } 0·00 | Pyx Pieces. }| 3·02 | 3·02|
| | +----------+ |
| | Deduct }| | |
| | “received.” }| 19303·32 | |
| | +----------+---------+
| |Loss | 0·76 |857103·65|
+---------------------------+-----------------+----------+---------+

Ounces.
Total received from Mint Office 1499104·00
” returned to ” ” 1498503·73
----------
Loss 600·27
==========

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

The mean rate of
The Ends was 3·94 per cent. on the Rough Bars.
” Scissel was 37·85 ” ” ”
” Rejected Blanks was 0·89 ” ” ”
” Brockages was 0·38 ” ” ”
” Coined Money was 56.87 ” ” ”
” Coined Money was 59·22 ” ” Clean Bars

WAGES PAID TO WORKMEN BY PIECE-WORK SCALE.
+-------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| | 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 | £0·475| £0·697 | £1·386 | £2·358 |
| Coined Money. | | | | |
+-------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+

+------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| | Rate per cent. of | Rate per cent. of |
| | Coined Money from | Coined Money from |
| | Rough Bars. | Clean Bars. |
+------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| Florins | 55·26 | 57·76 |
| Shillings | 59·38 | 62·22 |
| Sixpences | 55·96 | 58·29 |
+------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| |
| _To the_ MASTER OF THE MINT. |
| GEORGE F. ANSELL. |
| _May 6th 1858._ |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

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

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

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