COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 1 August 1891)

§ *MR. MONTAGU (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)
On behalf of the hon. Member for Tax bridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), I beg to move the Amendments in his name.

§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, 1100 Hanover Square
I have explained to the hon. Member that it is not possible to consent to this. The sub-section will not be necessary in many cases, but it is regarded as a protection. I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment, but I do not think the hon. Member desires to press it.

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
I have explained to the hon. Member that I cannot accept this, and I understand that he will not persist if I give an assurance that when sovereigns have lost more than three grains in weight the Bank of England will pursue the same course they did in regard to the pre-Victorian coins. The three grains will be a guide to the Bank, and not a hard and fast standard. The same liberal method will be employed by the Bank of England in regard to Victorian coin as was employed in regard to pre-Victorian coin. I understand the hon. Member will be satisfied with this public assurance.

§ *(6.45.) MR. MONTAGU
I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take a favourable view of the reform I advocate. I have pointed out repeatedly that our gold coins are made of too soft a metal, and that they wear away more quickly than those of other countries, which use gold of 9–10th fineness, whereas our coins are of 11–12ths fineness. With the exception of Turkey, Portugal, and Brazil, where, however, little gold circulates, all countries use harder gold coins than Great Britain. I do not desire that the intrinsic value of our gold coins 1101 should be diminished in any way, but that they should be rendered more durable by the addition of one grain of copper to the half-sovereign, and of two grains to the sovereign, and I think it would be wise to make the alteration proposed in the clause. The alteration would not cause any expense, for the value of the increased amount of copper required would be infinitesimal, and we should have the advantage of having large masses of foreign gold coins of 9–10ths fineness always available for our coinage. They manage these things better in Prance, where a Commission which has been recently engaged in investigating questions affecting the coinage has estimated the gold currency at £140,000,000 sterling, which is about double that of England; and from testing about 12,000,000 20f. pieces, it has been estimated that the cost of restoring the gold currency would be less than £160,000, whereas our reduced estimate for a similar purpose and for half the quantity is £400,000. The greater portion of this difference in cost is due to the difference between the standards of the two countries. I hope the Government will try the practical experiment I suggest, especially with respect to the half-sovereign, which wears away much more quickly than the sovereign. This is attributable, I think, to the greater use of the half-sovereign. Half-sovereigns, I believe, are required only for circulation, whereas sovereigns are required for exportation and for holding in reserve. All will admit that the half-sovereign is a very expensive coin. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) said a few years ago that it was a profligate coin. Under the circumstances, I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will try the experiment of making it of more durable metal by adding one grain of copper to each piece. The half-sovereign is not used for international payments at all; and I feel perfectly certain that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer avails himself of this unique opportunity of dealing with it in the manner I suggest, he will find that he has done a wise thing. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he will have to re-coin about 70 per cent. of the half-sovereigns in circulation, and if he also calls in at the same time the hideous jubilee type of the coin he will have a 1102 much larger percentage to deal with. I am persuaded that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes this experiment with regard to the half-sovereigns, and is in office eight or nine years hence, he will see the expediency of carrying out the same reform with respect to the sovereign.

§ *(6.54.) MR. GOSCHEN
There is no doubt the hon. Member has given great attention to this matter, but his proposal is one which must be dealt with with the very greatest caution. The hon. Member is not prepared to make a change with regard to the intrinsic value of our gold coins, but with regard to their weight and fineness. If his proposal were adopted we should have in circulation gold coins of two different standards of fineness, which, I think, would be a great disadvantage. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what is the difference between the wear and tear of gold of 9–10ths fineness and that of 11–12ths fineness. The French Government have had experiments made on the subject, and I asked Professor Roberts-Austen to go to Paris and ascertain the results of those experiments. The experiments were made with the object of ascertaining the effect of various kinds of friction on coins made of gold of different standards of fineness with regard to loss of weight. A very ingenious machine was employed for the purpose, but I am bound to say that the results obtained cannot be regarded as conclusive, as it is impossible by means of a machine to represent the actual wear and tear to which a coin is subject. The experiments showed, however, that in the case of a coin of the English standard weighing 12.903 grammes the loss amounted to .669 grammes in 30 hours, which corresponds to a loss of about £5 3s.8d. per £100. In the case of a coin of the Prench standard of the same weight the loss was .656 grammes, representing a loss of about £5 1s. 8d. per £100. The difference in favour of the French standard was, therefore, slightly over 2s. per £100. But the wear and tear represented would be equivalent to the wear and tear of a life of 150 years. Therefore, it would be 150 years before the hon. Gentleman would realise the full saving of the change suggested. I 1103 do not think it is worth while, for the sake of so slight a difference as that, to undertake the re-coinage of the gold in circulation.

§ *MR. MONTAGU
The Chancellor of the Exchequer states that he cannot regard the French experiments as conclusive, and yet he has drawn his deductions from them. I would point out, however, that there are two different standards in France with regard to the silver, and I see no objection whatever to having two different standards of gold—one for the sovereign, and the other for the half-sovereign. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is opposed to any alteration in so technical a matter, of course I cannot press it on the Committee, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has fully considered the great advantage of being in unison with the rest of the world on this subject.

Imperial weight.	Metric weight.
Grains.	Grammes.
62.77866	4.56798,"—