Chapter VIII: Part 8

Let us, then, turn to the accounts, and see how far the other expenses are unnecessarily inflated—and why? In such a consideration it will be necessary to revert, as in the case of losses, to the earlier periods of the Government occupation of the Mint; and, without going too far into details, it may be stated that the average amount of _rejected work_ (see page 44) reached, in some instances, 70 per cent.; but if the averages for sovereigns be taken as extending over long periods, a good general knowledge may be gained, thus:—

In 1855, between June 6th and August 13th, the highest was 40·51 per cent., the lowest 13·13 per cent., the mean of 41 days giving 21·49 per cent.; while, at that period, the coined money was 43·53 per cent. on the clean bars.

In 1856, from January 2nd to January 22nd inclusive (18 working days), the highest was 21·48 per cent., the lowest 12·72 per cent., the mean of 18 days giving 18·51 per cent.; while, at that period, the coined money was 38·39 per cent. on the clean bars.

In 1856, during a short coinage I reduced its average amount to 13·78 per cent., the coined money increasing to 41·74 per cent. on the clean bars; but, as shown at page 92, this improved in 1857 to 6·99 per cent., while the coined money rose to 57·26 per cent. on the clean bars.

In 1860, from January 4th to February 18th inclusive (41 days), the highest was 7·71 per cent., the lowest 2·33 per cent.; the mean of 41 days was 4·11 per cent., which by the file was reduced to 2·07 per cent.;[78] while, at that period, the coined money was 57·43[79] per cent. on the clean bars.

[Footnote 77: See pages 91, 97, 133, 135.]

[Footnote 78: See Master’s Letter to Treasury, page 179.]

[Footnote 79: See my Report to the Master of the Mint, March 8, 1860.]

Before arriving at definite conclusions as regards the amount of rejected work, it will be necessary to understand that up to the 2nd of August, 1861, the remedy[80] allowed in practice was 0·30 grain, and that in proportion as the remedy is reduced, the amount of rejected is increased; it is also the case that when work is good all the blanks or coins approach the standard weight, but when it is bad they as invariably go to the side or margin of the remedy. The following table exhibits the amount per cent. of rejected work[81] which took place, with the various remedies; and these facts once determined, are to be remembered, because the rejected will in all cases bear these proportions to each other. In this table sovereigns are alluded to.

[Footnote 80: See Remedy explained at page 39.]

[Footnote 81: See page 44.]

REMEDY IN PARTS OF A GRAIN.
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| | 0·30 | 0·25 | 0·24 | 0·23 | 0·22 | 0·21 | 0·20 |
| |Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|Grain.|
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|Average in 1860 |4·00 | 8·00 | ... | ... | ... | ... |12·00 |
| ” 1861 |... |10·00 |13·00 |15·00 |15·00 |18·00 |19·00 |
| ” ” |5·10 |10·50 | ... | ... | ... | ... |19·66 |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

These considerations had no weight when the Coinage Bill was being hurriedly passed—at late hours, so as to avoid discussion on its clauses—by the House of Commons. It in due course reached the House of Lords, where Lord Kinnaird moved a clause—which would have been greatly to the benefit of the Mint had it been adopted—to the effect that the remedy on the individual piece should be 0·2568 grain; that is—the remedy from the old scale under the Mint Indenture proportioned to one coin. This Coinage Bill introduced a new principle, and it would have been wise had it given the Mint every chance of success. Instead, however, of proceeding cautiously, his lordship’s motion was rejected and the remedy declared fixed at 0·2000 grain, thus necessitating the use of a working remedy of 0·1700 grain, or perhaps 0·1500 grain, and the consequent rejection for re-melting of “_only_ 15½ per cent. of the whole of the money coined.” My experience tells me, more probably of about 35 per cent.; but upon this head I will allow Mr. Napier to speak. He says, “Indeed, roundly taken, the returns to the crucible may be put at nearly 50 per cent.; so that to produce a given weight of finished coin, something like double the weight of metal must be melted. So long as this state of things lasts, the process up to the formation of the blank must be regarded as imperfect.” It is not the _process that fails_, it is the want of power _to conduct that process_ which causes so candidly admitted a continuation of the fatal system re-introduced by Mr. John Graham.

The proportioned legal remedy was 0·2568 grain. Now we can only wish to be within the law. If, therefore, 0·25 grain had been adopted as a _working remedy_, the automaton balances are so accurate that no piece could ever be found beyond the remedy, on either side, and an immense expense would be saved in labour alone, for the rejected goes to the melting-pot; yet, owing to a mistake on the part of the Bank of England, 0·20 grain was used in 1861, but under my urgent representation this was relaxed because of the extravagant expense, and for some years 0·24 grain was used, in accordance with the following order from the Master:—“Mr. Ansell is requested to increase the remedy on sovereigns from 0·20 grain to 0·24 grain, and the half-sovereigns in a similar proportion.—14th of August, 1861. (Signed) THOMAS GRAHAM.” Under other management, since the early part of 1868, the working remedy has been reduced to 0·15 grain. Such useless waste, it is to be hoped, has only to be pointed out that this clause of the New Coinage Act may be repealed.

Following these considerations, the next table will show the rate per cent. of rejected sovereigns and half-sovereigns, as well as the remedies practically employed in regular work. They are, in all cases, the average results of whole coinages of each specific year mentioned.

+------+---------+---------+-----------------------+--------------+
| | | | By Filing Metal | |
| | | | from the Edges of | |
| | | | the Heavy Blanks | |
| | | | they were reduced | Sovereigns |
| | | Half- | to the Standard | coined (that |
|Date. |Sovereign|Sovereign| Weight when the | is, weighed |
| | Blanks. | Blanks. | original rate |after the Coin|
| | | | per cent. | was struck, |
| | | | was reduced to, | so the heavy |
| | | | on | were melted).|
| | | +-----------+-----------+ |
| | | |Sovereigns.| Half- | |
| | | | |Sovereigns.| |
+------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+--------------+
| |Per Cent.|Per Cent.| Per Cent. | Per Cent. | Per Cent. |
| 1855 | 21·49 | 32·29 | ... | ... | ... |
| 1856 | 14·50 | 20·04 | ... | ... | ... |
| 1857 | 7·44 | 16·13 | ... | ... | ... |
| 1858 | 4·50 | 11·16 | ... | ... | ... |
| 1859 | 5·67 | 8·86 | 4·14 | 5·52 | ... |
| 1860 | 3·62 | 10·08 | 1·69 | 4·65 | ... |
| 1861 | 5·75 | ... | 3·36 | ... | ... |
| ” | 21·43 | ... | 12·22 | ... | ... |
| ” | 16·07 | ... | 6·68 | ... | ... |
| 1862 | 9·48 | 17·06 | 3·37 | 11·53 | ... |
| 1863 | 9·68 | ... | 4·25 | ... | ... |
| ” | 18·76 | 18·08 | ... | 11·69 | ... |
| ” | 18·76 | ... | 6·76 | ... | ... |
| ” | ... | 28·79 | ... | 12·86 | ... |
| 1864 | 15·15 | 28·27 | 5·07 | 12·79 | ... |
| ” | ... | ... | ... | ... | 5·74 |
| 1865 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 6·61 |
| 1866 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 9·87 |
| 1867 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| 1868 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 17·82 |
+------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+--------------+
+------+------------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | Half- | | |
| | Sovereigns | | |
| |coined (that| Remedies employed on | Remedies |
|Date. | is, weighed| Sovereigns | employed |
| | after the | on each piece. | on Half- |
| | Coin was | | Sovereigns |
| | struck, so | | on |
| | the heavy | | each piece. |
| | were | | |
| | melted). | | |
| | | | |
+------+------------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| | Per Cent. | Parts of a Grain. |Parts of a Grain.|
| 1855 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·30 | ... | 0·15 |
| 1856 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·30 | ... | 0·15 |
| 1857 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·30 | ... | 0·15 |
| 1858 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·30 | ... | 0·15 |
| 1859 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·30 | ... | 0·15 |
| 1860 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·30 | ... | 0·15 |
| 1861 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·30 | ... | ... |
| ” | ... | ... | 0.20 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| ” | ... | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | ... | ... |
| 1862 | ... | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | 0·12 | ... |
| 1863 | ... | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | ... | ... |
| ” | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·12 | ... |
| ” | ... | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | ... | ... |
| ” | ... | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | 0·12 | ... |
| 1864 | ... | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | 0·12 | ... |
| ” | 14·76 | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | 0·12 | ... |
| 1865 | 12·60 | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | 0·12 | ... |
| 1866 | 15·64 | ... | ... | 0·24 | ... | 0·12 | ... |
| 1867 | 20·28 | ... | ... | ... | ... | 0·12 | ... |
| 1868 | ... | 0·15 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+------+------------+------+-------+------+------+--------+--------+

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

[Footnote 82: See pages 44-45.]

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

STATEMENT SHOWING THE RATE PER CENTUM OF MIXED COIN FROM ROUGH BARS OF GOLD, AND THE RATE PER CENTUM OF SOVEREIGNS AND HALF SOVEREIGNS FROM THOSE RESPECTIVE BARS. THE BRITTLE BARS AND STOPPED POTS ARE DEDUCTED.

+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| Coinage | | | Rate |
| conducted between |Mixed Bars,|Mixed Coin.|per cent. on|
| the Periods:— | “Rough.” | |Mixed Bars. |
| | | | |
+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| | Ounces. | Ounces. | |
|November 1856 to April 1857 | 1,103,403 | 456,575 | 41·37 |
|October 1857 to March 1858 | 2,280,033 | 1,238,171 | 54·24 |
|November 1858 to June 1859 | 1,955,961 | 915,530 | 46·80 |
|January 1860 to March 1860 | 1,460,209 | 802,847 | 54·28 |
|January 1861 to April 1861 | 1,707,098 | 862,329 | 50·51 |
|June 1861 to March 1862 | 4,448,353 | 1,874,885 | 42·14 |
|May 1862 to March 1863 | 4,534,377 | 2,354,805 | 51·93 |
|October 1863 to June 1864 | 4,946,697 | 2,323,238 | 46·96 |
|October 1864 to December 1864| 1,981,150 | 958,354 | 48·87 |
|January 1865 to August 1865 | 1,129,772 | 518,673 | 45·91 |
|November 1865 to May 1866 | 3,580,017 | 1,396,567 | 39·29 |
|April 1867 to June 1867 | 305,418 | 127,576 | 41·77 |
|July 1868 to August 1868 | 678,976 | 280,993 | 41·38 |
+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------+
+-----------------------------+---------+----------+------------+
| Coinage |Sovereign| | Rate |
| conducted between | Bars, |Sovereigns|per cent. on|
| the Periods:— |“Rough.” | Coined. | Sovereign |
| | | | Bars. |
+-----------------------------+---------+----------+------------+
| | Ounces. | Ounces. | |
|November 1856 to April 1857 | 480,704| 288,592 | 60·03 |
|October 1857 to March 1858 |2,133,366|1,168,227 | 54·29 |
|November 1858 to June 1859 |1,341,862| 592,325 | 44·14 |
|January 1860 to March 1860 |1,185,227| 657,362 | 55·46 |
|January 1861 to April 1861 |1,402,538| 717,010 | 51·12 |
|June 1861 to March 1862 |4,448,353|1,874,885 | 42·14 |
|May 1862 to March 1863 |4,237,267|2,220,713 | 52·40 |
|October 1863 to June 1864 |4,557,216|2,166,112 | 47·53 |
|October 1864 to December 1864|1,713,659| 847,357 | 49·44 |
|January 1865 to August 1865 | 779,345| 373,340 | 47·90 |
|November 1865 to May 1866 |2,676,226|1,041,926 | 38·11 |
|April 1867 to June 1867 | ... | ... | ... |
|July 1868 to August 1868 | 678,976| 280,993 | 41·38 |
+-----------------------------+---------+----------+------------+
+-----------------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| Coinage | Half | Half | Rate |
| conducted between | Sovereign|Sovereigns| per cent. on |
| the Periods:— | Bars, | Coined. |Half Sovereign|
| | “Rough.” | | Bars. |
+-----------------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| | Ounces. | Ounces. | |
|November 1856 to April 1857 | 622,699 | 167,983 | 26·97 |
|October 1857 to March 1858 | 146,667 | 69,944 | 47·68 |
|November 1858 to June 1859 | 614,099 | 323,203 | 52·63 |
|January 1860 to March 1860 | 274,982 | 145,400 | 52·87 |
|January 1861 to April 1861 | 304,560 | 145,319 | 47·71 |
|June 1861 to March 1862 | | | |
|May 1862 to March 1863 | 297,110 | 134,092 | 45·13 |
|October 1863 to June 1864 | 389,481 | 157,125 | 40·34 |
|October 1864 to December 1864| 267,491 | 110,986 | 41·48 |
|January 1865 to August 1865 | 350,427 | 145,332 | 41·47 |
|November 1865 to May 1866 | 903,791 | 354,640 | 39·23 |
|April 1867 to June 1867 | 305,418 | 127,576 | 41·77 |
|July 1868 to August 1868 | | | |
+-----------------------------+----------+----------+--------------+

STATEMENT SHOWING THE GOLD BARS USED IN EACH COINAGE FROM NOVEMBER, 1856, TO AUGUST, 1868, AND THE RATE PER CENTUM OF ENDS, OF MIXED GOLD COIN, AND OF SOVEREIGNS AND HALF SOVEREIGNS PRODUCED FROM THOSE BARS.

+-----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+
| | | | |
| Coinage |Mixed Bars,| Ends |Sovereign|
| conducted between | “Clean.” |cut from | Bars, |
| the Periods:— | | Bars. | “Clean.”|
| | | | |
+-----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+
| | Ounces. |Per Cent.| Ounces. |
|November 1856 to April 1857 | 1,057,776 | 4·13 | 460,851|
|October 1857 to March 1858 | 2,192,798 | 3·82 |2,051,872|
|November 1858 to June 1859 | 1,798,717 | 4·41 |1,210,447|
|January 1860 to March 1860 | 1,414,516 | 3·13 |1,148,130|
|January 1861 to April 1861 | 1,619,251 | 5·14 |1,330,448|
|June 1861 to March 1862 | 4,215,722 | 5·22 |4,215,722|
|May 1862 to March 1863 | 4,351,531 | 4·03 |4,066,506|
|October 1863 to June 1864 | 4,566,032 |[83]7·60 |4,261,432|
|October 1864 to December 1864| 1,851,724 | 6·48 |1,602,533|
|January 1865 to August 1865 | 1,047,901 | 7·24 | 722,921|
|November 1865 to May 1866 | 3,336,536 | 6·80 |2,494,243|
|April 1867 to June 1867 | 291,696 | 4·50 | .. |
|July 1868 to August 1868 | 612,857 | 9·57 | 612,857|
+-----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+---------
| | Half | Mixed | Sover- | Half
| Coinage | Sover- | Coin, | eigns |Sovereigns
| conducted between | eign |including| from | from
| the Periods:— | Bars, | Pyx | “Clean”| “Clean”
| |“Clean.”| Pieces. | Bars. | Bars.
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+---------
| | Ounces.|Per Cent.|Per Cent|Per Cent.
|November 1856 to April 1857 | 596,925| 43·16 | 62·62 | 28·12
|October 1857 to March 1858 | 140,926| 56·39 | 56·93 | 49·63
|November 1858 to June 1859 | 588,269| 50·89 | 48·93 | 54·94
|January 1860 to March 1860 | 266,386| 56·75 | 56·43 | 54·54
|January 1861 to April 1861 | 288,803| 53·18 | 53·88 | 50·03
|June 1861 to March 1862 | ... | ... | 44·47 |
|May 1862 to March 1863 | 285,025| 54·03 | 54·60 | 47·39
|October 1863 to June 1864 | 304,600| 50·88 | 50·82 | 51·25
|October 1864 to December 1864| 249,191| 51·75 | 52·87 | 44·53
|January 1865 to August 1865 | 324,980| 49·49 | 51·64 | 44·72
|November 1865 to May 1866 | 842,293| 41·80 | 41·77 | 42·10
|April 1867 to June 1867 | 291,696| ... | ... | 43·70
|July 1868 to August 1868 | ... | ... | 45·84 |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+---------

[Footnote 83: See pages 46, 92.]

The half-sovereigns shown in this table (page 111) at 26·97 per cent. were coined in November, under the old system, but they are placed here that these returns may be accurate. The effect of the reduction of the remedy from 0·30 to 0·20 grain (which has been explained at page 107) is evidenced in the amount of coin obtained in the period—June, 1861, to March, 1862; yet it is fair to admit that some of this gold was exceptionally bad, for the Bank of England, finding that the bad gold of 1859 had been coined, paid the Mint the compliment to send at this period some of a singularly rotten character, with an appearance almost woolly; and if reference be made to the table of rejected at page 109, this gold will be seen to have produced, with a remedy of 0·24 grain, 16·07, reduced to 6·68 per cent., over the remainder of the coinage, thus making the disastrous effect of the reduced remedy more apparent. As has been before stated, the gold of 1859 contained, besides a vast amount of brittle gold, 0·45[84] per cent. of its whole weight of dumb fillets. Then, coming to the period, October, 1863, to June, 1864, we find a continued state of bad work, influenced by the remedy of 0·24 grain to a certain extent but to a much more marked degree by the new system which was now introduced; and by referring to the next table, it will be seen that the ends at one jump went up from 4·03 to 7·60 per cent., because a mistaken opinion led to the shearing off the ends from the bars in the rolling room. The order for the re-introduction of this abandoned custom was in the following terms, so could not be set aside by those who saw its _unwisdom_:—“In the practice of the rolling room, Mr. John Graham is requested to cause not less than 3 inches from the hollow end of each gold bar to be cut off before beginning the rolling, with a view of keeping back the doubtful portion of the bar.—(Signed) THOMAS GRAHAM. 7th December, 1863.” Grave as was this error, it was surpassed by a real blunder, for at this period it was determined to stop all fillets that appeared to exhibit any signs of brittleness, thus hopelessly rejecting an immense bulk of really good work lest it should contain any bad; whereas, had the proper course been adopted, the good from each fillet should have been selected, as was the _invariable_ custom under the MONEYERS and the small per-centage of really bad fillets rejected. By this system the men were thoroughly disheartened. To such a length was this mismanagement at last carried, that the officers and men allowed things to take their course, feeling sure that time would demonstrate the folly of the present system. However, the extravagance has continued down to this day. Yet another source of waste of labour was left; and even this was utilised. In the working of the draw-bench, as well as the mill, there are at starting many fillets so varying in thickness that it is not fair to make the trier send them to the _cutters_ as regular work. It was the custom at that period to detain these fillets to the end of the day, when they were especially treated, cut at a special cutter, and the blanks sent to be weighed—the good were reserved, but the bad were returned to the trier, yet not charged to him as bad work, thus enabling him to save at least 70 per cent. of, perhaps, 5,000 ounces per diem. Under the new _régime_ this was not permitted, from sheer want of knowledge, although its stoppage was condemned alike by officers and men. Causes such as these reduced the average amount of coined sovereigns, from rough bars, from 51 to 44 per cent., as will be seen by examining the table of coined money obtained from _rough bars_.[85] By now referring to the accompanying statement, the effect of this mismanagement will be seen, for instead of an average of 52·40, only 48·48 per cent. of coin was obtained from bars[86] that had been stripped of every fault that could interfere with their producing power. Instead of yielding, as these should have done, a larger proportion of coin, they really gave less than the coin previously obtained from rough bars, as will be manifest if this statement be consulted. But, that these facts may be more clear, this abstract is made from the two previous tables, showing the averages of coin obtained and the waste of labour by manufacture under the present system, so clearly to exhibit the amount of loss in money value by labour alone.

[Footnote 84: See pages 46, 92.]

[Footnote 85: See page 111.]

[Footnote 86: See page 110.]

+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
| | On Rough Bars. |
| +-------+-----------+-----------+
| From | Mixed |Sovereigns.| Half |
| | Coin. | |Sovereigns.|
+---------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+
|November 1856 to March 1863| 48·75 | 51·34 | 45·49 |
|October 1863 to August 1868| 44·03 | 44·87 | 40·85 |
+---------------------------+-------+----------+------------+
|Waste per Centum | 4·72 | 6·57 | 4·64 |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------+------+
| | On Clean Bars. |
| +-------+-----------+-----------+------+
| From | Mixed |Sovereigns.| Half | Ends.|
| | Coin. | |Sovereigns.| |
+---------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+
|November 1856 to March 1863| 52·40 | 53·98 | 47·44 | 4·26 |
|October 1863 to August 1868| 48·48 | 48·58 | 45·26 | 7·03 |
+---------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+
|Waste per Centum | 3·92 | 5·40 | 2·18 | 2·77 |
+---------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+------+

STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY COINED AND OF PYX PIECES BETWEEN NOVEMBER, 1856, AND AUGUST, 1868.

LEGEND:
(A) = Money Coined:—Sovereigns and Half Sovereigns.
(B) = Coined Money:—Sovereigns
(C) = Coined Money:—Pyx Pieces.
(D) = Coined Money:—Half Sovereigns.
(E) = Coined Money:—Mixed Pyx Pieces.
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Coinage | | | |
| conducted between | (A) | (B) | (C) |
| the Periods:— | | | |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | Ounces. | Ounces. | Ounces |
| November 1856 to April 1857 | 456111·568| 288314·570| 277·857|
| October 1857 to March 1858 |1236713·674|1166819·294|1407·777|
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
|December 1858 to January 1859[87]| 450090·524| 410119·648| 584·990|
|March 1859 to June 1859[88] | 464407·847| 181414·181| 207·494|
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| January 1860 to March 1860 | 801722·890| 656425·814| 936·549|
| January 1861 to April 1861 | 861205·000| 715989·212|1021·293|
| June 1861 to March 1862 |1872214·638|1872214·638|2670·720|
| May 1862 to March 1863 |2351444·336|2217447·814|3265·725|
| October 1863 to June 1864 |2320041·256|2163027·402|3085·452|
| October 1864 to December 1864 | 957057·966| 846150·074|1207·216|
| January 1865 to August 1865 | 518037·315| 372808·744| 532·079|
| November 1865 to May 1866 |1394809·101|1040421·949|1504·848|
| April 1867 to June 1867 | 127485·816| | |
| July 1868 to August 1868 | 280608·540| 280608·540| 385·200|
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Coinage | | | |
| conducted between | (D) | (C) | (E) |
| the Periods:— | | | |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | Ounces. | Ounces. |Ounces. |
| November 1856 to April 1857 | 167796·998| 186·436 | 464·293|
| October 1857 to March 1858 | 69894·380| 49·947 |1457·724|
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
|December 1858 to January 1859[89]| 39970·876| 28·404 | 613·394|
|March 1859 to June 1859[90] | 282993·693| 210·844 | 418·338|
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| January 1860 to March 1860 | 145297·076| 103·747 |1040·296|
| January 1861 to April 1861 | 145215·788| 103·618 |1124·911|
| June 1861 to March 1862 | | | |
| May 1862 to March 1863 | 133996·522| 95·786 |3361·511|
| October 1863 to June 1864 | 157013·854| 111·964 |3197·416|
| October 1864 to December 1864 | 110907·892| 79·094 |1286·310|
| January 1865 to August 1865 | 145228·571| 103·618 | 635·697|
| November 1865 to May 1866 | 354387·061| 253·461 |1758·309|
| April 1867 to June 1867 | 127485·816| 90·265 | |
| July 1868 to August 1868 | | | |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+

[Footnote 87: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 88: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 89: Explained on page 115.]

[Footnote 90: Explained on page 115.]

To show the extra cost of coining, these figures have but to be multiplied into the sums coined. Before, however, entering upon this field, it will be well to explain that the rates per cent. of coined money obtained, as exhibited in the last two tables, are inclusive of the pyx pieces, so as to show, as far as possible, the best results. The pieces taken for the Mint trial are excluded, because these do not ultimately find their way into circulation; but that the vast money loss may be seen, I have added, in a tabular form, a statement[91] which will show the weight of coined money produced in each coinage from 1856 to 1868. It may, at first sight, appear that if the work be so badly conducted as to yield an average of 3·92 per cent. less coined money from a hundred ounces of bars, the expense incurred is increased to an equivalent amount; but such is not the case, for all depends on the point at which the extravagant workmanship may have taken place. If, for instance, the bad work be produced in the rolling room, it simply induces the expenditure of so much wages in the melting, because the men are paid for the bars produced; but if the rejection shall have taken place after the money is coined, it becomes a more serious matter, because, in such a case, the loss and expense attendant on each operation subsequent to the melting have been incurred. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to give a general rule, but an instance will suffice. The coinage for 1857,[92] inclusive of every _manufacturing_ expense, cost 6_s._ 5_d._ per thousand pieces; while that of 1866 cost 13_s._ 2_d._ per thousand pieces. That the exact amount of waste may be estimated for these two years, then, it is only necessary to multiply the weight given previously (refer to page 114) for the coined money and pyx pieces, which, in the period from November, 1856, to April, 1857, would be 456,111·568, added to 464·293, and the sum of these, multiplied by £3·89375,—the decimal expression for £3 17_s._ 10½_d._, when the total value of that coinage will be obtained, and found to be £1,777,796·15. Since each thousand coins cost 6_s._ 5_d._, the total sum was coined at an expense of £570 7_s._ 6_d._; but, had the rate of expense been the same as for the coinage of 1866, the total cost would have been £1,170 7_s._ 7½_d._, or exactly £600 0_s._ 1½_d._ more than it should have cost for actual working expenses. So by the rule of proportion the actual expense for the coinage of 1866 may be obtained, and this table is valuable as showing the weight of each coinage, but will naturally be more serviceable to those who seek practical information than to general readers, and for the benefit of such it is added.

[Footnote 91: See page 114.]

[Footnote 92: See page 117.]

On examining this table (see page 114), it will be observed that the coinages of December, 1858, to June, 1859, and against which is placed, are bracketed, with a view to call attention to the fact that the accounts of those two coinages became inexplicably mixed. Since the present and the late Prime Minister have stated from their places in Parliament that the Royal Mint is found wanting in administrative ability, it may not be out of place to suggest that there is abundant room for reform in the Office division of that Department, for it is seldom that the accounts can be obtained for many months after the work is finished, and this circumstance, as is apparent, is a serious inconvenience to the operative department.

Following these considerations on the extravagance of manufacture, and reflecting on what the processes should be, it appears that this is a fitting point at which to study the cost of producing gold coins, and, consequently, the rates of wages paid to the men for labour. Therefore, it may be well to state that there were two systems of payments to workpeople: one by which they were paid for _time_, that is, by the hour, for cleaning the working departments, machinery, &c., and for the more important coining of bronze; while for the coining of the precious metals they were paid by a scale of _piece-work_. These systems produced nothing but dissatisfaction amongst the workpeople, for at times they were receiving very good wages, and at others none at all; and to meet such contingencies the men and boys who were on the establishment received a kind of retaining fee, which was called subsistence, and in bitter irony no more fit name can be given to the miserable pittance which, under this form, was paid to them. It commenced at 6_s._ a week, and, after twenty years, rose to 10_s._ a week; and if, as often happened, the Mint were idle for months together, this was all the poor fellows had to subsist upon; and, to reduce the value of this pittance to its smallest proportion, they were not entitled to it unless they should each day present themselves, and, by a fiction, ask for leave of absence for that day, the longest period for which leave can be granted. After many attempts to compel the men to comply with these terms, they were wisely permitted to go home, and “wait further orders;” so that, by a kind of tacit resistance, they were able to overcome a regulation which would make it impossible to obtain employment elsewhere, because most other work commences before eight, at which hour they were required to present themselves. If, instead of this unsatisfactory state, the men were paid fixed wages, and, in addition, so much for each 100 lbs. of coined money produced, they would be satisfied, while the coined money would be produced at a cheaper rate, for each man would be concerned to see that every exertion was made for the final event; whereas, under the then arrangement, with a specific amount of gold to be coined, it is manifest that, with management such as is now under discussion, the sum for wages might be doubled, because the men were paid at the following

Rates for Piece-work.

LEGEND:
(A) = Rolling Fillets.
(B) = Adjusting and Cutting.
(C) = Marking and Annealing.
(D) = Coining in Press Room.
(E) = Melting. (Ends are not deducted.)
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| For each 100 lbs.| | | | | |
| Troy of Good | (A) | (B) | (C) | (D) | (E) |
| Work produced. | | | | | |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| |_s. d._|_s. d._|_s. d._|_s. d._| _d._ |
|Gold Sovereigns | 3 0 | 5 0 | 3 0 | 2 6 | 5 |
| Half Sovereigns| 5 0 |10 0 | 6 0 | 5 0 | 5 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Florins | 1 6 | 2 6 | 2 0 | 1 8 | 5 |
| and upwards | | | | | |
| Shillings | 2 0 | 3 6 | 3 6 | 3 0 | 5 |
|Silver Sixpences | 4 0 | 7 0 | 7 0 | 6 0 | 5 |
| Fourpences | 5 0 | 8 0 |14 0 |12 0 | 5 |
| Threepences | 6 0 |10 0 |14 0 |12 0 | 5 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+

And, to view this matter in its practical light, we can demonstrate its unadvisedness. Thus, in the coinage of 1857,[93] there were 2,110,962 ounces of gold bars wrought, which produced 2,016,337·80 ounces of fillets (equal to 95·51 per cent.). These fillets produced 1,163,502·34 ounces of good blanks, from which 1,154,590·87 ounces of coined sovereigns were obtained. Now, if these various weights be reduced to wages—the men were paid for the produce of each operation—by the table above given, they will yield as follows:—

[Footnote 93: See page 92.]

£ _s. d._
For melting 36 12 9½
” rolling 252 8 0½
” cutting and adjusting 260 12 5¾
” annealing and blanching 145 8 9
” coining in press room 120 5 4¾
--------------
£815 7 5½

So that for producing 1,154,590·87 ounces, or £4,495,748, of coined money, the men were paid £815 7_s._ 5½_d._, which sum was equally divided amongst the whole body, except that paid to the melters, for they are still paid, by a curious fiction, as packers and tellers. This, then, is the sum paid for wages when the coin produced averaged 54·79 per cent. on the bars; but let us see its amount compared with another statement put forward by the late Master of the Mint when the sovereigns produced averaged—the coinages concerned terminated in December, 1864,[94] and May, 1866[95]—49·44 and 38·11[96] per cent. on the bars respectively—in other words, let us compare this rate of pay with that given in the Report of the Commissioners on the International Coinage, from which book the figures for 1864 in the following Table are taken.

[Footnote 94: See page 111.]

[Footnote 95: See page 111.]

[Footnote 96: By reference to the table at page 84, it will be seen that the amount of coin obtained in 1866 was below the worst produced at any other period since 1851.]

STATEMENT SHOWING THE COST OF PRODUCING
1,000 COINED SOVEREIGNS AND HALF SOVEREIGNS.

+-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+
| | | | | |
| | | Total | Average | Total Sum |
| Date | Denomination | Number |Number of | paid to |
| of | of Coin. | of Coins |Pieces per| Workmen as |
|Coining| | in the | Week. | Wages. |
| | | Coinage. | | |
+-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+
| | | | | £ _s. d._ |
| 1857 |Sovereigns | 4,495,748 | 497,625 | 778 14 8 |
| 1858 | ” | 47,549 | | 8 4 2½ |
| 1858 |Half Sovereigns| 544,312 | 272,156 | 91 10 3 |
| 1864 |Sovereigns | 5,663,656 | 514,878 |2,011 11 7½ |
+-------+---------------+-----------+----------+---------------+
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| | | Cost of | | |
| | Cost of |1000 pieces | Cost in | Total Cost |
| Date | 1,000 |in Salaries | Loss of | of |
| of | Pieces in | and | Metal by | producing |
|Coining| Wages. |contingent | Coining. | 1000 Gold |
| | | expenses. | | Coins. |
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |
| 1857 | 0 3 5½ | 0 8 1¼ | 0 2 9½ | 0 14 4¼ |
| 1858 | 0 3 5¼ | 0 17 5½ | 0 4 1¼ | 1 5 2 |
| 1858 | 0 3 4½ | 0 18 3¾ | 0 4 1¼ | 1 5 9½ |
| 1864 | 0 7 2 | 0 12 9¼ | 0 6 0 | 1 5 11¼ |
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
+-------+------------+-------------+
| | | |
| | | Total Cost |
| Date |Cost of 1000|of producing |
| of | pieces for | one Gold |
|Coining| melting. | Coin. |
| | | |
+-------+------------+-------------+
| |£ _s. d._ |£ _s. d._ |
| 1857 | 0 0 1·955 | 0 0 0·174 |
| 1858 | | 0 0 0·302 |
| 1858 | | 0 0 0·309 |
| 1864 | | 0 0 0·311 |
+-------+------------+-------------+

By which it is demonstrably shown that whereas at that period 1,000 coins cost for wages 7_s._ 2_d._, at the periods above given, and shown as 1857-8, the cost was 3_s._ 5½_d._ for the same number of coins, thus showing a clear saving for wages, by the proper system of management, of 3_s._ 8½_d._ on each 1,000 sovereigns coined, or on that total quantity no less than £1,050 2_s._ 8½_d._ While such extravagance is not only tolerated but approved, miserable savings are effected at the cost of the helpless. But to treat of the wrongs to which men in this Department are submitted would take volumes which none would read.

Since, however, the appearance of the last edition of this book, the Mint Authorities have adopted in part the plan of wages payment I therein suggested, and which I had submitted to the late Master of the Mint in my Report dated 29th January, 1859. Indeed, I believe the system now in force was recommended to the Treasury, in the first instance, by Mr. Thomas Graham. I am sorry they did not give full effect to my propositions, still they have improved the positions of the workmen by the alterations made, but for the reasons I shall state I cannot concur in what they have done. I leave my original proposition to speak for itself, as I reproduce it a few pages hence, and here content myself with exhibiting the system of payment to workmen now in force in the Royal Mint. _Vide_ “Mint Reports,” No. 7, 1870.

“We propose that for the future all piece-work in gold and silver coining shall be paid for at the reduced rate of 1_s._ 9_d._ per 1,000 good pieces, and all bronze coining at the rate of £2 10_s._ per ton for pence, £3 10_s._ per ton for halfpence, and £7 per ton for farthings.

“In addition to their wages for piece-work, we propose that the men should be entitled to a uniform payment of £1, and the boys to a payment of 10_s._, and after three years’ service, to 15_s._ per week. The only exception to these arrangements would be the payments made to certain overmen, which would be in one case £1 10_s._, and in five other cases £1 5_s._ per week. These payments would continue to be made when the Mint is at work as well as when it is unemployed, and to the boys as well as to the men. All the men and boys would thus receive sufficient weekly wages to maintain them, both during a cessation of work and while the Mint is in full operation.

“By this arrangement an average saving of £100 a year only will be effected.”

To the principle involved in this system I take exception; for the manufacturers, who gave the idea for it, never coined the precious metals, so that the whole operation of the system could not have been present to their minds when they recommended it. By this plan the men are paid for simple numbers, and not as they should be, in proportion to the labour and anxiety incurred.

That this fault may stand out clearly, I submit in the following table a fair week’s work on each coin, and we will assume that the one kind of coin follows the other, as indeed would really be the case in actual operation, only at greater intervals.

+-------------------------------+
| GOLD. |
+---------------+---------------+
| Sovereigns. | Half |
| | Sovereigns. |
+---------------+---------------+
| 600 journeys | 300 journeys |
| per week. | per week, |
| = 420,600 | = 420,600 |
| pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 |
| per 1,000. | per 1,000, |
| | |
| Wages £36·80 | £36·80 |
+---------------+---------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| SILVER. |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Florins. | Shillings. | Sixpences. | Threepences. |
| | | | |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 240 journeys | 180 journeys | 108 journeys | 60 journeys |
| per week, | per week, | per week, | per week, |
| = 475,200 | =712,800 | = 855,360 | = 950,400 |
| pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 | pieces at 1/9 |
| per 1,000, | per 1,000, | per 1,000. | per 1,000. |
| | | | |
| £41·55 | £62·37 | £74·84 | £33·16 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
| BRONZE. |
+------------------+------------------+--------------+
| Pennies. | Half pennies. | Farthings. |
| | | |
+------------------+------------------+--------------+
| 30 cwt. per | 25 cwt. per | 12 cwt. per |
| diem, or say | diem, or say | diem, or say |
| 9 tons a week | 7·50 tons a week,| 3·60 tons a |
| at £2 10_s._ | at £3 10_s._ | week, at £7 |
| per ton. | per ton. | per ton. |
| | | |
| £22·50 | £26·25 | £25·20 |
+------------------+------------------+--------------+

It is reasonable to suppose that men are more exposed to temptation when gold is within their reach (and that this is Mr. Fremantle’s view may be gathered from one of his reasons for urging a removal of the Mint, viz., to avoid “opportunities for peculation”) than when they are operating upon silver or bronze; yet we find by the above demonstration that sovereigns and half-sovereigns yield almost _the worst wages_ to the men, for the sums specified are divided amongst the whole body of them, who probably number now, as when I left the Mint, 27 men and 11 boys. The contrast is stronger if the payment for _florins_ be compared with that for THREEPENCES, which, with a tithe of the labour, yield just _double_ the remuneration. The Reporters give a reason why they altered the system, which after I have pointed out the above facts, will seem to be curious. They state that the _inequalities of wages_ induce “the improvident to contract liabilities, and, on the other hand, the more skilful workmen are induced to accept employment elsewhere, and the Mint loses their services.” In my own experience, the men prefer regular wages of a smaller amount to an irregular income of greater value, because they can then regulate their household expenses and save money by fixed weekly sums, but that this reason never entered the heads of the Reporters is manifest from their own admission. They urge “_this arrangement_ because _an average saving of £100 a year will be effected_,” which saving is to come out of the pockets of men already underpaid. I would say to the Reporters, “Muzzle not the ox that treadeth out the corn.”

The total cost, then, of producing a sovereign in 1857 under proper management was 0·174_d._, while under Mr. Graham’s system it would appear to have been 0·311_d._ in 1864. If, however, the facts be examined, and stripped of the sensational effect of the cost of one coin, it will be found that the difference is far from infinitesimal, for whereas the total absolute cost per 1,000, inclusive of everything, was 14_s._ 4¼_d._ in 1857, it had reached £1 5_s._ 11¼_d._ in the years 1864-66 (see page 117). The increased expense thus incurred amounts to 11_s._ 7_d._ on each 1,000 coins, or, on the whole amount of that coinage, to £3,280 4_s._ This, then, is the state of cost at a selected period, when a large amount was coined weekly. But what would have been the cost had it been taken on the total coinage? For then we should have found an increase in the amount per 1,000 pieces for salaries and contingent expenses, whereas the figures for 1857 include the whole coinage—beginning, middle, and ending; so that the average produce of coins per week, although appearing to be smaller than that of 1864, is really far greater, for whereas the largest number reached in any one week in 1864 was 585,899[97] pieces, in 1857 the largest number in any one week was 915,506[98] pieces, or larger by 329,607 pieces, the average per week being 17,253 pieces less, because the coinages of 1864-1866 referred to, do not contain the beginning and “tailing-off” of the coinage; in simple fact, they are figures written _for effect, not for information_. That the complete coinage costs more for salaries and contingent expenses is self-evident, because those expenses remain the same if no coins be struck, but that this is a fact is demonstrated by the little coinages of 1858 in the same table,[99] where it will be seen that, although the payments for wages nearly approach the cost of 1857, the cost for salaries and contingent expenses is greater than it was in 1864. Another point is here also proved to demonstration—that whereas the loss by coining is clearly proved to be unnecessary, the late Master of the Mint states it at 6_s._ per 1,000, or £300 per million coined. That this should have been so stated is of ill omen,[100] for when the belief of Mr. Brande and his colleagues led them to the conclusion that loss was necessary at a mean rate of £373 per million, they exceeded £500; and, by rule of proportion, we may expect the Mint to make, now that the belief of the late Master has found expression, a loss of £452.[101] Be this as it may, the difference between 6_s._ and 2_s._ 9½_d._ is sufficient to make men think, for even this trifle of 3_s._ 2½_d._ on 1,000 coins amounts to £908 2_s._ 6½_d._ on that single coinage. That the loss on the coinages of 1858 should be so great is explained by the fact that in a small coinage the first loss by gilding the machinery is as great as in a large one; but in the case of a great coinage this is so distributed over the mass as not to appear. Had it been determined, however, to exhibit the actual facts by the system of selection followed by others, not only would this loss of metal have disappeared, but a gain would have been shown, for on those particular coins there was an actual gain of 1·39 ounces, which is at the rate of £9 18_s._ 10½2_d._ per million coined, or 2·386_d._ per 1,000 pieces coined, so reducing the cost of these actual coins to £1 0_s._ 10½_d._ and £1 1_s._ 6_d._ per 1,000 respectively; but as these matters are dwelt upon for information alone, it is preferred to place the fair proportion of the loss on this coinage on this portion of it. It should be observed that the contingent expenses for 1857 do not include £1,100 voted for the new files,[102] because that sum was never appropriated to that purpose; but that they do include the subsistence paid to the men, and, indeed, every possible sum other than weekly wages paid to the men by the piece-work scale above quoted. I have not questioned, nor have I investigated, the figures used by the late Master of the Mint, for as he wrote those papers, and invited the Signatories to give their names after the copies were fairly made, it is but just to suppose that that gentleman satisfied himself of their accuracy.

[Footnote 97: See Report by Commissioners on International Coinage, p. 93.]

[Footnote 98: See the Mint Books.]

[Footnote 99: See page 117.]

[Footnote 100: See page 125.]

[Footnote 101: See page 129.]

[Footnote 102: See pages 44, 179.]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed to reduce the value of the gold coinage by removing one grain of gold from the sovereign, a reduction of 0·81119 per cent, of its value. This matter has been so fully discussed, and its error so completely demonstrated, that little need be here said; but there is one consideration which should not be omitted. The new standard of value, for such it will be, will be worth only its value in gold immediately after it has quitted our shores. To travellers, therefore, it is a tax of about one per cent., for each of Mr. Lowe’s pounds will fetch but 19_s._ 10_d._, and, whether the coins be exchanged here or abroad, the reduction must be borne; whereas, if it were determined to charge the _importer_ for the cost of coining, and for that alone, no tax could fall on individuals—a system which must be unjust, and the coin would, by this burden, be restricted in its power of sale as bullion, so small a sum as one-eighth of one per cent. having frequently determined the sending of coin rather than of bullion, because, when the exchanges are nearly equal, merchants thus save the cost of assaying, which, inclusive of loss of interest, &c., amounts to 2_s._ 6_d._ per £100. To fix, then, the sum proper to charge for the coining of gold is practically a simple matter, if it be desired, as should be the case, to protect our coinage from conversion into bullion, to the profit of special merchants, but to the loss of the nation. In the following proposition the exact cost can be determined, and that should be the maximum limit of a Mint charge or _mintage_, for if that charge be so enlarged as to insure a profit, the fears of Mr. J. G. Hubbard as to the illicit coiners relieving the Mint may be expected to be realised.

Between April, 1855, and December, 1865, £59,581,957 were coined, or an average of £5,958,195 in each year. If, however, six millions be accepted as the average yearly coinage of gold, it will give data for the following calculations.