Chapter IV: Part 4

Text size

“The arguments in favour of an _exact coinage_ chiefly
rest upon an economical basis, and branch out beyond the
walls of the establishment into questions of currency,
wear, and recoinage, which it is not thought necessary to
treat of here; at the same time it may be stated that it
seems desirable that the coinage should be made as exact to
weight as possible CONSISTENT WITH ECONOMY, and
that an _exact coinage_ would be found more economical
as a circulating medium, would be more just, and a better
starting-point from which to legislate for the withdrawal
from circulation of worn coin than a coinage issued from
the Mint with acknowledged errors, or differences in weight
so substantial as to be represented in value, in the case
of gold coins, by some of the lesser denominations of the
coins of the realm.”

The reasons which Mr. Napier gives are worthy of grave consideration—they are mine wholly—except so far as regards those to which I have drawn attention by printing them in small capital letters, and which show that even with his vast experience he dare not answer for the success of his machine, while the suggestion of the necessity “to acquire a knowledge of its use” should make a desire to recur to a successful machine paramount. If, indeed, I rested on my own opinion, I should be content to see Mr. Napier’s machine tried, although I think its failure would be established; but it so happens that I can quote the opinion of the late Master of the Mint on the machine under consideration, expressed at a period when the efficiently economical conduct of the Royal Mint had received his utmost consideration. In his letter to the Treasury, dated 7th June, 1860, he says:—

“I may be allowed to call to your recollection that a
Parliamentary grant of £1,100 was obtained by the Mint in
1856 for the purchase of two automaton filing and adjusting
machines, which it was proposed to have constructed by
Messrs. R. Napier and Sons, the eminent engineers. No part
of this grant has been appropriated. The rapid amendment in
the blanks which took place immediately afterwards led me
to suspend the order for these machines, and ultimately to
abandon the idea of any great expenditure for the object
contemplated. In the meantime also, a machine of a much
more simple character was contrived by Mr. R. Pilcher, of
the weighing room, and was constructed in the Mint, with no
assistance from without. Pilcher’s adjusting machine has
proved sufficiently effective, costs nothing for labour,
and has now been in constant operation for two years. The
cost of making a pair of machines such as we now possess
is estimated at £60, a sum which was saved to the public
by the mode in which the work was executed. Trusting that
the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury will be
disposed to consider favourably the merit and practical
value of such an invention, I venture to solicit their
Lordship’s sanction to the application of £60, the sum
just stated, to the benefit of the inventor, jointly with
an ingenious mechanic on the establishment, who gave
material assistance in the construction of the machine. I
would propose the following awards, if agreeable to their
Lordships:—To Mr. R. Pilcher, £40; to Meredith Jones, £20.”

It was upon advice tendered by myself that Mr. Graham thus excluded the machine now recommended by Mr. Napier. I maintain that a simple machine should be preferred before a complicated one, and the Mint authorities should give Mr. Pilcher’s £60 machines—admittedly perfect in operation—a fair trial against Mr. Napier’s £1,100 machines, and see if they prove _equally effective_. If, on the other hand, Mr. Napier’s fails, then it is but fair to the public that that machine which is undoubtedly a success, and for which the inventor has been _publicly rewarded, although in a most inadequate manner_, should be used.

The machine thus spoken of was used with the utmost advantage until 1866, when its use was abolished by the advice of Mr. John Graham, who subsequently, in 1868, broke it to pieces that _his improvements_ might be rendered permanent, thus causing an expense of 50 per cent. on the total cost of manufacture for _rejected coins_,[27] because the use of the file having been abolished, the coined money alone was weighed, thus rendering it impossible to reduce the heavy pieces.

[Footnote 27: That is, coins which, although otherwise perfect in manufacture, are not within the limited variations of weight permitted by the Mint regulations.]

Although the use of this file has thus been stopped, it is greatly to be hoped that it will again be employed, and thus enable the Government to produce coined money at the cheapest possible[28] rate, because it enables the Mint authorities to obtain the largest per-centage from the bars. Feeling that this much-desired re-introduction will take place, it is thought wise to give the following description of Pilcher’s file, which, if not desired for the benefit of our own Mint, will be adopted by other coining countries:—Fig. 14 is a representation of this compact machine. The blanks A are placed in rouleaux in a tube B, which is open at top and at bottom; through the opening at the bottom the blanks rest their EDGES on the file C, which, as it revolves about 1,000 times per minute, files off metal from the edge of the blank. Each machine has two tubes, and when both have been filled the rod D, which carries a triangular knife-edge, is released by the lever E, and the knife-edge resting upon the upper edge of the blanks A,—with the intention of offering resistance to their rotary motion,—enables the operator to remove MUCH OR LITTLE metal from their edges at pleasure by increasing the resistance which D offers by adding a weight G on to the gallery F. H is a glass dish into which the dust, as it is removed from the edges of the blanks, falls, thus insuring a perfect _separation of the dust_ from the blanks. The blanks in B are kept in their position by small blocks of ebony, which are secured by the thumb-screws I. Motion is given by the wheel J, which communicates with the pulley K by a cord or catgut. The whole machine stands on a block of mahogany L, secured to a table of oak. M is a screw which is used to tighten the cords between J and K. Between C and H is a hopper of brass to catch flying particles of the precious metals. Each file reduces 250 sovereign blanks per minute.

[Footnote 28: See pages 108, 109.]

The objections which were raised to the introduction and use of this machine were curious, and amongst others it was firmly maintained that it caused the coining press to make brockages, because the blanks which had been filed were smaller than those which had not been thus treated. The amusing part of this objection was that _all_ the blanks were afterwards reduced to a uniform diameter by the edges being compressed _before_ being coined.

The medium blanks—now unfortunately the coined moneys—are rung by boys to detect any which may be dumb or cracked, and which are rejected for melting. Dumb or cracked pieces arise when bubbles of air are enclosed in the bars at the time of pouring the fluid metal into the moulds in the melting-house.

Besides this source of dumb work may be mentioned another of large occurrence in silver, and occasionally met with in gold, which results from an imperfect mixture of the alloy at the time of melting, and developes itself at the draw-bench, where whole fillets, of six feet long, may be seen to separate into two complete layers of metal, the inner surfaces being coated with a thin film of copper, frequently quite pure, but sometimes in the form of suboxide. It would thus appear that a globule of copper becomes enveloped in a volume of fluid gold or silver, and, in the act of pouring, this globule is drawn out into a kind of wire, perhaps extending some inches in length, enclosed in precious metal. When this is rolled it is all flattened together, but there is no adhesion between the surfaces, so that when the fillet passes through the draw-bench the lateral motion given to the atoms of the metal causes the slip which finally separates the two surfaces of metal, and the eye at once detects the existence of the fault. In the coinage of 1857, no less than 141·38 ounces of gold fillets thus imperfect were returned to the melter in one day, and on the whole of that coinage these fillets averaged nearly 0·50 per cent. (see page 92). In the case of silver this defect is of less consequence, but of greater occurrence. It is the duty of the melter to see that such bars are neither produced nor forwarded, and there can be but little doubt that in a properly conducted Mint the melter would be directed to re-melt such fillets without payment to the men.

The medium blanks which would now be fit for coining should be weighed up in bags of about 500 ounces, instead of 180 ounces, as is the custom, and sent forward to the room in which is placed a machine which has to diminish the diameter of each blank by compressing its edges. This is called a _marking machine_, but such a name being obviously improper, it is preferred to call it the EDGE-COMPRESSOR. Up to 1861 the best machine for this purpose was that invented and patented by Messrs. R. Heaton and Sons, of the Mint, Birmingham; but in the early part of 1858 the subject of the varying diameter of blanks came under consideration as effecting the production of brockage. Mr. Pilcher was consulted by me, and proposed a machine, of which he gave the outline, which I submitted to the Master of the Mint on the 31st of March, 1858. This machine was to be fed from the top, but was abandoned because it did not meet the desired minimum of 1,000 pieces per minute. Mr. Pilcher therefore proposed to erect on the same spindle five revolving discs, and to face these five discs with as many cheeks. At a given time it was determined to manufacture a marking machine, and one of five which Mr. Pilcher proposed was to be made. It was preferred to ask Mr. Meredith Jones to assist in its manufacture. Mr. Jones had also a design for a machine for this purpose, and it was arranged that as Mr. Jones made Mr. Pilcher’s file he should make his own machine. Mr. Jones proposed, and Mr. Pilcher accepted, the following proposition. Mr. Pilcher was to retire from the machine, and in consideration of his so retiring, and allowing the machine to be called Jones’s marking machine, Mr. Jones was to give Mr. Pilcher one-half of whatever sum might be paid by the Mint for the use of the machine. Fig. 15 represents Mr. Jones’s machine. The blanks are placed in the hopper A, and fall by an incline into a tube B until they rest at C, on a notched wheel D. As D revolves each of its notches carries away the bottom blank of the pile from the tube B, and leaves it to slide down the tube E till it reaches the block F. The block F is cut with a narrow groove, which exactly corresponds with the groove Gᵃ on the plate or disc G. The disc G revolves, and as the blank slides down and comes with some little impetus against the groove in the block F, the groove Gᵃ catches it, and causes it to take two revolutions between the disc G and the block F, finally permitting its escape at H, when it falls into I, being now reduced in diameter and thicker on the edge, but its centre remaining as it was before. The machine is driven by J, the shaft of which carries a reduced rigger for the driving of K. The hopper is supported by the rod L. The distance between F and G represents the diameter of the blank after its edge is compressed, this distance being determined by the screws seen at M. Blanks of all diameters may be compressed at this machine if the block F and the plate or disc G be removed and replaced by others, neither operation taking many minutes. The edges of the blanks are compressed at the rate of 700 per minute. A boy of fourteen could work this perfectly well, and with more convenience now that the hopper is replaced by such a one as is used to supply Mr. Cotton’s weighing machine. The edge of the blank is compressed with a view to prepare it for the _crenating_ to be given by the collar in the after process of conversion into a coin.

The blanks are conveyed from the edge-compressor to the annealing room, where they are placed in rouleaux in iron boxes, the tops of which are luted on with clay, the boxes are then placed on iron carriages, and run into reverberatory furnaces, heated by Juckse’s smoke-consuming apparatus, where they remain for an indefinite period. The furnaces are like that represented in the rolling room for annealing the fillets in copper tubes. To anneal the blanks, the temperature should be raised rapidly until the boxes attain a full red heat; and the time allowed for the operation should be from twenty to twenty-five minutes at the utmost. After the heating, the boxes are withdrawn from the furnace and placed on the floor of the room, till the blanks are assumed to have become of a low red or black heat, the point below that at which copper combines rapidly with oxygen; they are then opened. If the boxes be opened while the blanks are still of a full red heat, there is what is called too much loss by annealing, or, in other words, too much of the copper has become oxidised, and thus rendered soluble in the dilute sulphuric acid into which they are presently removed. The box having been opened, the blanks are turned out into a copper tray, and on this carried to a cistern of cold water, in which a colander stands; they are thrown through the water into this colander, and thus cooled rapidly. When cool, they are taken in the colander to a leaden cistern of nearly boiling dilute sulphuric acid, into which they are placed, and allowed to remain for about three or four minutes. By means of this bath of sulphuric acid a thin skin of oxide of copper is removed; the gold on the surface from which the copper has been washed out is of a sponge-like form, and gives a beautiful bloom to the new coin when it is struck. This process is called _blanching_, and is of great interest to the coiner, as it is here that his loss by coining takes place. The bars of gold sent to the coiner are found to be standard within certain limits,[29] therefore the blanks produced from those bars must be of the same fineness; but by this process of blanching, copper is removed; hence the standard, or the amount of pure gold contained in the blanks, is proportionably raised, and this tells on the million to an amazing extent. When the annealing is conducted for too long a period, the copper becomes oxidised to too great an extent during the time of annealing, for there is no atmosphere more capable of oxidising than is that of one of these furnaces; it is for this reason that the heat should be gained rapidly, before that oxidising atmosphere shall have time to permeate the luting and attack the copper of the standard gold. At the trial of the pyx in 1861 the gold coined by Mr. Thomas Graham, the late Master, was found to be “4 grains on the pound too fine;” that is to say, containing in 5,760 grains 5,284 grains of pure gold in the place of 5,280 grains, which it should have contained. This is well for the people, but it is bad for the Master of the Mint, because he has lost 4 grains of pure gold on each pound that he has coined, which amounts to no less than £757·65870 in value upon every million of sovereigns. This loss may well be avoided, either by adding extra alloy to allow for this removal of copper, or, as would be far wiser, by abolishing the process of annealing the blanks, as was done in 1859, when more than a quarter of a million of sovereigns were coined from unannealed blanks obtained from brittle gold which was much harder than any ordinary gold to be met with. It must be remembered that the saving of bullion would leave a large margin for the increased destruction of dies, and in addition the coin would wear longer in circulation.

[Footnote 29: See page 53.]

By his elaborate experiments Mr. Charles Hatchett proved not only that the British standard gold was the best alloy for coins, but that this alloy should be so manipulated as to avoid either the extreme of ductility or of hardness, and when this medium was attained the coins produced wore longer and better than any others.

It will be of importance in this place to consider the question of annealing the blanks previously to coining them, and experience teaches that this process should be omitted. The gold alluded to as coined in 1859 from unannealed blanks was the same gold that was spoken of as being so toughened in the form of bars when the fluid metal had been poured through a stream of coal gas.[30] The gold contained antimony, arsenic, and lead, so was predisposed to become brittle; but by pouring through the air it absorbed oxygen, and became certainly the most brittle gold that has passed through my hands. It was toughened by reducing the oxide of copper, and worked remarkably well, producing the most workable fillets, regular and uniform blanks, which yielded an average of 5·67 per cent. rejected. The blanks were tough, soft, and very malleable, capable of being cut with a chisel without fracture, and ringing musically on an iron block, thus satisfying all the requirements of good coining gold; but directly these blanks were annealed they showed 30 per cent. of pieces so brittle that they could be broken by a moderate pressure of the finger and thumb. After coining, the whole mass became so brittle that less than 2 per cent. remained sound after twice ringing on an iron block, as is the usual practice. These brittle coins, when again annealed, and suddenly cooled by plunging into cold water, became tolerably tough, and withstood ringing to 8 times, when they again became brittle. It now became evident that none of this gold should be issued to the public,—indeed, I may state that this same gold had been rejected by all the coining countries as unfit for coin. It was therefore ordered to be melted and returned to the Bank as unfit for coin, its value being £167,539. After every possible obstacle had been placed in the way, I overcame the aversion to change, obtained permission to try some experiments on this gold, rewrought it, and coined it all without annealing. The coin thus produced was so tough that an ordinary man could not break a sovereign even by the aid of a pair of pliers.[31] Yet when these toughened coins were annealed, they became so brittle that a child could break them readily. In the Royal Mint some of these coins in each state are preserved. Mr. Graham, then ever anxious to secure to the Mint any advantage, was pleased to address to the Treasury a letter on the subject of this gold, in which he said, “A correspondence between the Governor of the Bank and myself on the brittle property of the gold occasionally imported into the Mint to be coined was formerly brought under your notice in my letter of the 21st March, 1857. The evidence of the evil in question was not confined to the Royal Mint, but has, I believe, been felt at all other mints, and also by goldsmiths generally, since the recent gold discoveries. It was traced to the presence in the gold of a minute portion of antimony or arsenic (often not greater in quantity than one-tenth of a per cent.), which escapes the observation of the assayers. But no remedy in dealing with such gold then presented itself, except the expensive one of having the brittle gold refined.

[Footnote 30: See page 6.]

[Footnote 31: These coins, struck between marked dies, may be recognised by a small line which I placed in the centre of the ribbon at the back of the head representing her Majesty on the obverse.]

“An unusually large proportion of the gold received for coining last year was of this defective character, but the whole of it was successfully coined notwithstanding, and no part returned to the Bank to be refined, as on former occasions.

“This improvement in the practice of the coining department is the result of a laborious investigation made in the coining department, of which I am happy to assign the chief merit to Mr. Ansell.

“It now appears that the antimony or arsenic acts injuriously when the gold blanks are allowed to cool gradually, but not when cooled suddenly, after annealing, the gold appearing to have time to crystallise and become granular under the influence of the antimony particles in the one case, but not in the other. The improvement may be justly represented as one of considerable value. It saves entirely much extra labour hitherto applied to brittle gold without any beneficial result. It will also lead to the diminution of waste, of which brittle gold was always a fruitful source.”[32]

[Footnote 32: Besides many verbal congratulations, the Master wrote me the following letter:—

Registered No. 3026, 1860.
Royal Mint, 20th October, 1860.

DEAR SIR,

Your success in obviating the difficulty of coining gold containing
a minute portion of antimony or arsenic is a benefit to this
department, which calls for my most grateful thanks. In recognition
of your services I have the pleasure, with the approbation of the
Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, to present to you the
sum of one hundred pounds, for which cheque is enclosed.

I have the honour to be,
Dear Sir,
Most faithfully yours,
THO. GRAHAM.
George F. Ansell, Esq.

]

I do not accept the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Graham, for my experiments showed clearly that this peculiar gold could not be heated even to a black heat after coining without becoming absolutely brittle under all circumstances. Notwithstanding the experience gained by the coining of this brittle gold, the annealing of coined money was effected by the present authorities at the Royal Mint in 1868, when a vast amount of brittle gold was coined, of which considerably more than half a million sterling in coined pieces were annealed and plunged into cold water, just as was done in 1859, and with precisely similar effects; that is, the production of brittle pieces, as soft as lead and perfectly rotten. These pieces were sent to the Bank of England, where they have given great dissatisfaction. They should have been melted, as were those of 1859. I, being an officer of the Mint at the time, offered to coin this gold as I had coined that in 1859; my offer was declined, and a vast mass of very brittle coin was, in addition to that of which I have spoken as having been annealed after coining, issued to the public, besides many thousands of ounces uncoined having been returned to the Bank of England by the Mint authorities, who found themselves unable to coin it; these facts being, as I think, little to the credit of the official ability.

The Right Honourable Lord Kinnaird, with a view to relieve the Mint authorities, suggested, on the 22nd of March last, from his place in the House of Lords, a proviso “that such gold”—specified in clause 8 of the Coinage Bill then under discussion—“should be free from lead, antimony, and other substances, so as to admit of its being coined without previous refining.” The Government promised to consider this suggestion, and, after consideration, rejected it, although the right thus proposed to be established has always been claimed by the Mint but disputed by the Bank of England. His lordship then drew the attention of the House of Lords to the issue of the brittle sovereigns, to which I have alluded, as having given so much dissatisfaction at the Bank, and on the 25th of March, the following letter appeared in the _Times_:—

“THE COINAGE BILL DEBATE.
“_To the Editor of the Times._

“SIR,—In your full and very correct report of what I
stated in the House last night on the Coinage Bill, there is an
error which I think must have occurred in the printing—‘sweat’
should be ‘sweep.’ I think what I said in regard to the £640,000
sent by the Mint to the Bank would have been clearer if I had
added—‘Its brittleness was increased by being annealed after
coining.’

“Your obedient servant,
“KINNAIRD.
“50, Avenue Road, Regent’s Park,
“March 23rd.”

Attention being thus forcibly drawn to a great evil, the Marquess of Lansdowne, in reply to Lord Kinnaird’s remarks on the appointment of Mr. Roberts, stated that “Mr. Roberts was a very eminent chemist, who had proved his capabilities by devising a system for depriving gold of the obnoxious properties on which the noble lord recently commented.” Lord Kinnaird has already pointed out that this process, which the eminent Mr. Roberts has “devised,” was discovered by Dr. Percy, and that the process was published by that gentleman so long since as 1848. Dr. Percy conceived the elegant idea that if a stream of chlorine gas were passed over an ore containing gold, the chlorine would combine with the gold and dissolve it out from its matrix, as water would do sugar. This it does with complete success, forming a chloride of gold which is readily soluble in water, and from which it can be obtained with the utmost ease.

With regard to the invention of the process for which Lord Lansdowne gave Mr. Roberts credit, the facts of the case stand as follows. Dr. Percy discovered that by means of chlorine gas he could separate gold from its ores. He described his invention in the Transactions of the British Association in 1848, and in the Philosophical Transactions in 1850. Plattner carried it out practically about 1852 in Silesia, and I, in January, 1856, conducted a long series of experiments upon it for the Chancellorsville Gold Mining Company. The exact process now proposed or “devised” by Mr. Roberts was patented by Mr. Miller, the present assayer to the Sydney Mint, in 1867—No. 1767. When Lord Lansdowne finds himself thus deceived, he will probably in future think it necessary to examine statements suggested to him before making them from his place in the House of Lords.

This _new_ process consists in forcing chlorine gas through melted gold, and it is assumed that the chlorine will carry off the silver, lead, antimony, tin, and arsenic, which render the gold brittle. On the face of the proposition, there are very grave reasons for believing that it will fail if tried. This also is the deliberate opinion of the most eminent metallurgical chemist of this or any other time; indeed, it has been tried and found a failure. It has failed of its object, and instead, attacks the gold, which, with the chlorine, will leave the melting-pot and pass into the chimney, creating a use for the proposed chimney chambers of Mr. Roberts.

Experience at the Mint is to the effect that the run of gold ingots produced by the melting of worn and light coins culled from those in circulation is found to be worse than standard by 1-500th, or two in each thousand parts. There can be no doubt but that this is mainly due to the fact of the loss of copper by the processes of annealing and blanching. In actual practice extending over many millions, it is found that 1,000,000 sovereign blanks lose 5,708 grains of copper: now, since this copper is removed from the surface, it leaves a sponge of pure gold coating that surface. Pure gold is very soft, and rapidly wears away, so that when the coins from which 5,708 grains of copper have been taken go into circulation, this film of gold, which amounts to £555·62 on each million pieces, is removed by friction. It will probably be argued that the copper being taken first and the gold afterwards, leaves the coin of the same standard as the original bars;[33] if, however, this proposition be examined, it will be seen that the bars are assayed and found to be below standard 0·55562 on the thousand coins; but the blanks obtained from the bars are, by annealing and blanching,[34] brought to standard before they are coined, and those coins assayed WHILE NEW are found to be standard by the jury of goldsmiths at the trial of the pyx, because they retain this film of gold; let them, however, go into circulation and lose their film of gold, and they will be reduced to the original composition of the bar; that is, worse than standard 0·55562 in the 1,000. The trial of the pyx[35] is supposed to be a great protection to the people against deterioration of the coinage. This opinion is not entertained by those who have witnessed the whole operation, for then it is manifest that the copper is sufficiently oxidised while melting to insure the alloy containing enough gold to enable the jury to find it “Fine, 4 grains on the pound,” or any other degree of fineness. There can be no doubt that the jury should be composed of men knowing something practically of assaying, and who would not hesitate to publish every detail of the process adopted, stating specifically the amount of loss incurred by melting the ingot produced from the selected coins. That the jury is composed of honourable men—goldsmiths—is beyond doubt; but that these goldsmiths should know how to assay is also an important matter, and should be a _sine quâ non_. It would be well if some independent member would move the House for a return of the assays by the Mint of ingots produced from worn and light coin received from the Bank of England.

[Footnote 33: See pages 48, 49.]

[Footnote 34: See pages 48, 49.]

[Footnote 35: See pages 166, 167.]

Having thus specifically stated in my previous editions the facts as they exist of our coinage, I waited a refutation of my statement. I was informed that the Bank of England had made careful assays, and proved that the worn gold coin was not below the standard of fineness. I was also informed that bullion merchants in London had obtained newly-coined sovereigns, and by means of a scratch-brush had removed the film of pure gold of which I spoke, and upon a re-assay no difference had been detected. My reply was, and continues to be, the assays were either made by bunglers or were carelessly made, while with regard to the statement related _for_ the Bank of England, I simply refused credence because in my own knowledge that Institution has been greatly puzzled for years as to the reason of the lower assay, and it was myself who pointed out the cause to Mr. Thomas Graham on the 4th January, 1860. That gentleman mentioned my suggestion to the then chief cashier, who preferred to think “it was due to the base coins which found their way into the Bank.” I said then as I think now—“I believe the officers of the Bank of England are far too sharp to take one base coin in five hundred.” This reply settled the discussion.

That the light and worn coin is habitually below the standard is conclusively proved by the fact that if any man should take, as the great Duke of Wellington did, a thousand sovereigns to a jeweller’s to be made into plate—and his Grace took coined money that he might be sure to have plate of the fineness of 22 carats, or standard gold—he would find, as the duke found to his cost, the plate “cut” at the Goldsmiths’ Hall as being below standard. That the case still exists is so well acknowledged by jewellers that they invariably add “fine gold” when they melt coin for plate which is to be stamped with the Hall mark.

“Monetarius,” who wrote to the _Times_ from Malvern—where, singularly, Mr. Thomas Graham was then residing—and Sir John Herschel, quoted in their letters to the _Times_ the report of a Belgian chemist to prove that our coinage is invariably standard. Such authorities seemed to quiet public opinion; but Lord Kinnaird moved on two occasions in the House of Lords for the “Returns of assays by the Mint of ingots produced from worn and light coin received at the Mint from the Bank of England.” The Government firmly refused these returns on the alleged ground that they were “too bulky;” Lord Kinnaird, however, explained the true cause of the refusal when he said that these returns would conclusively prove that the gold coinage, when worn, is habitually below the standard, as is also shown by Mr. Ernest Seyd in his letter of the 20th, inserted in the _Times_ of the 21st August, 1869:—

“... The British public are under the impression that
English sovereigns stand highest as far as correctness in
quality is concerned. In reality, the British gold coin
falls much more below its standard fineness than French,
American, and Russian coin.... But the best proof of the
greater inferiority of the British gold coin is given by
the action of the Bank of England. The Bank of England
cuts light gold coin, and so renders it unfit for further
circulation. The holder of such coin thus loses, in the
first place, the value of the gold worn away by abrasion,
and the cut sovereigns are handed back to him as being now
only bullion (the loss so far amounts to from 1_d._
to 4_d._ per sovereign); the bullion now remaining is
the metal of which the coin had been made, presumably at
the rate of 77_s._ 10½_d._ per ounce, and worth
that much, or, at the Bank rate for buying gold, at least
77_s._ 9_d._ per ounce. Yet the Bank of England
will not give more than 77_s._ 6½_d._ for it.
Worth at Mint price, 934½_d._, the Bank pays but
930½_d._ per ounce—a deduction of 0·43 per cent.”

_I_ need not express an opinion upon such a case so stated; but I can quote one of far higher value, for Mr. J. G. Hubbard, who is a profound authority, says, in his letter in the _Times_ of September 4th, 1869:—

“This inaccuracy of our Mint assays was pointed out by Mr.
Seyd in his intelligent and well-informed letter of the
20th ult., and I can corroborate his observations by my own
experience of sovereigns sent to Russia, where the Mint,
more exact than our own, ranked sovereigns at fully ⅛ carat
grain worse than standard.”

Let us now see what steps are taken by the authorities, and then judge of their motive for introducing a reform so greatly needed, and which would never have been attacked had not I unceasingly urged it since 1860. In his Report on European Mints, Mr. C. W. Fremantle says:—

“I have therefore received with much satisfaction the
expression of Mr. Roberts’s opinion that the process
of blanching may, as far as gold coin is concerned,
be discontinued without detriment to the appearance
of the coin. _It is this process which leads to the
deterioration of standard found to exist in gold which has
been for some length of time in circulation_, and _in
consequence_ of their Lordships’ decision that light
gold coin shall FOR THE FUTURE BE RECEIVED BACK BY
THE MINT FOR RECOINAGE, the question becomes at this
moment one of PECULIAR IMPORTANCE.”

I have emphasized some of the passages as showing that this decision is very like that of the unjust judge—not so much from conviction of right as from the necessity of the case. I do not charge the Mint with yielding to importunity; but being made to bear the loss, they are willing to amend that which they _now_ openly admit to have been a wrong. Why is the opinion of Mr. Roberts quoted? why not some of the great officials at the Mint? Silence on this head is significant. Mr. Roberts will hardly desire to claim a discovery which he found in my last book, for he, too, bought one of the first copies which were sold. That I may not appear to be claiming that which is not my own, I quote the words from Mr. Roberts’s report:—

“It is evident that bars slightly below standard may be
allowed to pass to the subsequent operations of coining,
on the assumption, justified by calculation, that the
blanching would be attended with a sufficient elevation of
standard to bring the coins within the limits of fineness
prescribed by law. The _film of soft pure metal_,
however, _is removed by wear_; and the coins, _when
remelted, will consequently be found to be below standard
fineness_.

“This is a question of some importance NOW that
the Mint has undertaken the operation of re-coining light
pieces, and I would recommend, therefore, that the process
of blanching gold coin should be altogether abolished.”

The italics are my own, and if the words so pointed out be read with reference to those I have persistently used, there can be but one conclusion, Mr. Roberts having had but a few months’ experience in the Mint, notwithstanding Mr. Fremantle’s reliance on his judgment.

As regards the trial of the pyx, useless and mischievously deceptive as it is shown to be, the Act of Parliament, 33 Victoria, cap. 10, makes it imperative to give this excuse for a dinner at the Goldsmiths’ Hall at least once a year. Had the Government assented to the proposition of Lord Kinnaird, and nominated the Professor of Metallurgy for the time being in the Royal School of Mines, one of their own officers, and who at present is the most distinguished of metallurgists, foreman of the jury, the country could have relied upon the verdict now given honestly enough; but upon inadequate knowledge, indeed, if the reader will refer to pages 10-12, it will become clear that so delicate a process as assaying should be watched by those who can appreciate its refinements, or its results can possess no judicial value.

I attended the trial of the pyx, which was held on the 17th July, 1860, with an especial view to, and an avowed intention of, publishing details of the operation. With a desire to further this object Mr. W. H. Barton, the then Deputy-Master, gave me the following particulars, and I, for myself, observed that the coin when melted was placed in an open crucible, without flux, and for part of the time without a cover: the ingot produced was of a GOOD BLACK colour from the oxidation of the copper. The objections to such a melting can hardly be exaggerated, and I am of opinion that however fairly selected—and they were honestly taken—1·310 ounces is not a sufficient bulk on which to form an opinion as to the purity of £24,654,849 of gold coin.

+------+---------------+--------------------+--------------+
| | | | Weight of |
| | | Value of the | Pieces taken |
|Coined| Name of Master| Coined Money | from the |
|Money.| when Coin | Pyxed. | Coined Money |
| | was Pyxed. | | for the Pyx. |
| | | | |
+------+---------------+--------------------+--------------+
| | | £ _s. d._ | Ounces. |
| |SIR J. F. W. | | |
| |HERSCHEL, BART.| 2,977,190 12 2 | 1052·200 |
|Gold | | | |
| |THOMAS GRAHAM, | | |
| |ESQ. |24,654,849 0 9¼ | 8300·087 |
+------+---------------+--------------------+--------------+
| |SIR J. F. W. | | |
| |HERSCHEL, BART.| 100,450 7 0 | 121·899 |
|Silver| | | |
| |THOMAS GRAHAM, | | |
| |ESQ. | 2,331,666 19 6 | 2811·543 |
+------+---------------+--------------------+--------------+

The authorities of the Mint, having assented to part of my proposition, have yet stopped half way, and blindly considering that the blanching _alone_ was the cause of loss to and fictitious value of the coinage, they will find that their loss is greater now than it was when they unwisely permitted blanching. I do not point out to them the reason why—that is now their business; but I confess that I am a little amazed at Mr. Roberts’s recommendation—one that was given up by the moneyers before he was born, yet now gravely made by that gentleman in these words, “I should prefer that in order to prevent needless wear to the dies, the blanks should be annealed, after every trace of oil has been removed by washing with the aid of alkali, the utmost care being taken to avoid oxidation by exposure to air.” One seems to see Mr. Roberts in the presence of men who would dwell on his instructions as would a soldier on those of his general, directing the filling of a copper tube with gold blanks, previously divested of “oil by alkali,” so as to leave a film of lime soap neatly protecting their surface, and covering them with powdered charcoal. The tube so filled will be duly placed in the furnace, duly heated, and duly plunged into the cistern of cold water by the foreman, who, having taken an insurance ticket from the Accidental Death Company, feels quite safe, when, suddenly, a mass of copper and some pounds weight of gold blanks occupy the space from which it is hoped his head may have retired in time. Quite seriously, I have seen the cap of a tube blown suddenly off, and the blanks projected from the tube so plunged into water—from the same cause that bursts a kitchen boiler when cold water is admitted to one already red hot—with such violence as would certainly kill a man if he chanced to be in the line of fire. Do they not at the Mint understand the true cause of loss? An officer who tells his men to “go and do,” is not so likely to effect his object as if he were to show them “how to do” the work required of them; neither “bullying” nor making the men pay for losses will stop those losses of bullion. Knowledge alone is power. Knowledge alone can direct. Knowledge alone is required in the Royal Mint. There are plenty of men there who are most desirous to carry out any instructions; but, if the bugle give an uncertain sound, who can obey?

The effect of the annealing having been thus dwelt upon and explained, I will continue the description of the subsequent operations, stating what was formerly done and what had better be recurred to till experience is gained by those who are entrusted with the management of the Mint. After about three minutes’ boiling in dilute sulphuric acid, the blanks in their colander were washed under a stream of cold water, to remove the sulphate of copper and the sulphuric acid from their surfaces, otherwise these substances would deface the dies used for coining, as well as give the coin a dirty appearance. From the washing they were taken to a sieve of sawdust, A, Fig. 16, into which they were thrown to be dried by friction with the hand. A revolving drum of brass lined with wood has lately been introduced for this purpose. The objections to this form of apparatus appear to be that the blanks get hardened by blows, through falling against each other, lose more in weight, and become indented on the surface, thus producing a less perfect coin. It had been wiser to have introduced a sieve with an eccentric motion, which, if filled with sawdust, would shake that dust between the blanks and dry each one perfectly, when, by the removal of a false bottom, the sawdust could be allowed to sift itself from the blanks by one or two turns of the sieve, and the latter would be as soft as they invariably were before the introduction of the brass drum. This would be a matter of importance if, as is to be hoped, the authorities are induced to abolish the process of annealing and blanching, for then it would still be necessary to remove the film of oil which is left on the blanks in the cutting-out process, and this could be done more quickly and effectively in the proposed sieve than by _any other process_. The sawdust absorbs the water from the surface of the blanks just as would a piece of sponge; but the surface is not all, for it is found that by the removal of the copper the gold on the face of the blank has been brought almost into the condition known as _frosted_; it is, in fact, to a small extent, honey-combed. The gold represents the comb, and the copper the honey, but as the copper is removed, water takes its place, and has to be dislodged from these interstices by heat. The blanks, having been partially dried in the sieve A, are put into the tray B, and from this they were shot into the colander oven C, which was closed, and then thrust into the heated chamber D, and twisted gently round and round at intervals during ten minutes. The blanks were then turned out into a sieve E, by which any particles of dust were separated; the blanks were finally, by the aid of the tray B, placed in a bag. The sawdust fell from the sieve A on to a plate of iron heated by the furnace E, by which it was dried, and became ready for another operation. The chamber D was heated by a small furnace beneath it.

AS USED IN THE ROYAL MINT.]

The blanks, having been thoroughly cleaned after annealing, are taken to the coining press, which at the present time is, as to efficiency, about what the old water-wheel is to the steam-engine; yet, as a relic of the past, it is a magnificent conception. It is perhaps the most interesting in its work of any of the coining machinery; its action is truly pleasing to watch, but one must feel that the totally deaf would enjoy the watching it at work more than do those who are endowed with the sense of hearing, because the noise of the presses would not disturb their thoughts. The noise is really painful. In these opinions Messrs. Fremantle and Napier express entire concurrence. The blanks taken from the colander oven are each by a single blow at this machine converted into coins possessing the obverse and reverse impressions, as well as the _crenated_ edge, which is one of the means employed to protect the coin from the peculations of the clippers, those enemies to coin of all ages and all countries, but whose business has departed, not so much from the crenated edge as from the better balances placed in the hands of almost every man—certainly within reach of every man. The crenated edge is known to be no protection against the plan called “sweating,” and which is effected by shaking the new coins in bags, when perhaps an ounce of gold may be obtained from 1,000 new sovereigns. The sovereigns thus treated are passed, and the operator makes his profit, but the light gold is detected by the balance, not by the eye. This is not the place to discuss[36] such a question, so that we pass on to a description of the machine which is used to give the image and superscription to coins which will be current in accordance with the law.

The steel engraving illustrates Mr. Boulton’s screw-coining press. The blank is laid by the automaton hand D on the lower die F; D retires, and the collar then rises and encloses the blank, while the upper die, fixed to the main screw of the press by the securing apparatus M, comes down with a blow estimated to be about forty tons, and, striking the blank, causes its particles to re-arrange themselves, and to assume the form given by the engraving on the dies and the crenated collar which surrounds them;[37] in other words, the plain blank becomes by one blow a coin in every way complete. The following description will convey to the reader an explanation of the processes as they arise. The press having been set at rest, with the fullest space between the dies, is called _up_—that is to say, the upper die has been raised from the lower die, and in this position the automaton hand D has conveyed a blank from the tube E to, and holds it over, the lower die F; upon the first motion of the press downwards, the eccentric wheel or cam A causes the lever B, which works on the pivot _a_, to withdraw D by the pin C. The lever B may be lengthened or shortened at pleasure by an arrangement against the lower B. The first motion towards the withdrawal of D causes its finger or hand to open, and to release the blank, which falls upon the face of the lower die. The opening of the finger, or hand, is effected by a pin which works in a slit in the movable finger of D, near to C. The continuation of the motion which draws back D, causes the rods I, which are carried by the main screw G, to release the collar K, by the levers J. The collar K, being thus relieved from downward pressure, rises by the elasticity of the springs L until it wholly encloses the blank which has been left on the lower die. The rods I pass through the shoulder of the frame of the press, and are destined for another service besides that just described; for the main screw G, which travels through a female screw fixed in the frame of the press (as may be seen by the dotted lines between G and H), thereby receives its power to rise or fall upon each part of a revolution, whereas the upper die must strike the blank a blow just such as would be struck by a hammer, and without a twisting motion; therefore that motion of G is lost just below H, where G fits into a cup suspended rigidly on, and is prevented from twisting by, the rods I, as shown at N. To the lower part of the cup N is fastened M, which carries the upper die. So that, just at the moment that the levers J have permitted the collar to enclose the blank, the upper die reaches the full force of its blow, and comes upon the blank. The force of the blow, by converting the blank into a coin, causes an instantaneous recoil of the screw G, which is assisted in its rise by a kind of balance just equal to its weight. The nature of this arrangement will be better understood by reference to the engraving, where the funnel-shaped tube O is seen to be traversed by a rod X, represented by dotted lines, and which terminates in the head of the screw G near the lowest X; the opening in the funnel being for the convenience of fixing this rod to G. At Y is a swivel, where the twisting motion of X, given by G, is lost. X is connected at its upper end with a balanced beam W, the other end of which is in communication with the chamber V by a rod which carries a piston working in V. The chamber V is not wholly exhausted, but is in connection by a tube with the partially-exhausted chamber T, an arrangement which, while it becomes a counterpoise to the weight of the press, is used as a regulator of the blow to be given, so that it is quite possible to coin blanks of differing denominations by the agency of this chamber without altering the vacuum in the large vessel T.

[Footnote 36: See pages 123-125.]

[Footnote 37: See page 80.]

Previous Next

Comments

The Royal MintChapter IV: Part 4

0%37 min left in chapter