Copy of a talk given in 1889 regarding the Sheffield Assay Office and the silver trade in that city. It is faily lengthy and I'll have to spread it over about four posts.
THE SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE
A talk given at the meeting of the Sheffield Literary and Philosophical Society on the 1st October 1889 by Arnold T. Watson, the President of the Society:
The Sheffield Assay Office, with a few notes on the Silver Trade of the Town.
Mr. Watson said :– Few persons can have advanced very far in life without having noticed that most articles made of the precious metals, gold and silver, bear upon them certain peculiar marks or impressions. These, as many of my hearers are aware, are there by virtue of laws passed and in force from time to time; the earliest of these laws being enacted nearly 600 years ago, in the reign of Edward I. Silver or gold when pure, is almost as soft as lead, and articles made of it would be quite unequal to the wear of everyday life. For this reason it is found desirable that some other metal should be added in order to impart a certain amount of hardness; so long as the amount added is kept within certain bounds the value of the article is increased, but should that limit be exceeded, the reverse is the case, and owing to the difficulty which a purchaser of any silver and gold article would experience in ascertaining whether or not he has been honestly dealt with, the laws referred to have been passed for his protection. These laws require that with but few exceptions all articles of gold or silver shall be made of a certain standard, and shall be assayed or tried at one or other of the few Assay offices authorised Un Great Britain and Ireland to ascertain that the law as to quality has been complied with, and subsequently to impress the distinctive marks vouching for the fact. The Standard of the country has varied from time to time. The statute 28 Edward I., cap. 20. ordains "that no Goldsmith of England, nor none otherwise within the King's dominion shall make, or cause to be made any Vessel, Jewel. or other thing of Gold or Silver, except it be of good and true allay; that is to say Gold not worse than the Touch of Paris (which was 19 1-5 carats, or parts in 24), and silver of the sterling allay or better; and that none work worse silver than money." This enactment as regards the standard of silver, remained in force until the year 1576, when an act was passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth ordaining "that no goldsmith shall make, sell, or exchange any wares of silver less in fineness than 11 ounces, 2 pennyweights silver (i.e., per pound troy)." This was the standard of English money in the time of Edward I.; but in subsequent reigns we find it of much baser quality; containing in the fifth year of the reign of Edward VI only one fourth part of silver, and 3/4 alloy, recovering the following year to 11oz. 1dwt. fine, but in the reign of Queen Mary again falling to 11oz. only. We can therefore well understand that so long as the standard was regulated by the fineness of money (as the act of Queen Elizabeth recites), there was ample opportunity for certain "evil-disposed goldsmiths to deceitfully make and sell plate and other gold and silver wares to the great defrauding of her Majesty and her good subjects." In the reign of William III. (1696), it was found, or suspected that the silver coin of the realm was melted up and converted into vessels of silver, and to put a stop to this, an act was passed raising the standard of wrought plate to 11oz. 10dwt.; but this remained in force only until 1719, when the old standard of 11oz. 2dwt. was restored, it having been found by experience, that the articles which were made according to that standard were more serviceable and durable than those of the new; the same act, however, also legalises the manufacture of plate of the fineness of 11oz. 10dwt., to be marked with distinctive marks. The present standard of this country is the one fixed by the last named act. As regards the standard of gold, until the year 1477, it remained "the Touch of Paris" when the act 17 Edward IV. c. 1., required all gold to be of the fineness of 18 carats. By 18 Elizabeth c. 15 this was changed to 22 carats which, continued the standard until 1798, when by another act, 38 George III., c. 69, the standard of 18 carats was again introduced, not, however, to the exclusion of the 22 carat, but concurrently with it. By an order of council of 11th December 1854, the new standards of 15,12, and 9 carats were introduced into this country, contrary to the advice of the Goldsmiths' Company, which discouraged the legalising of these very low standards. The marks placed upon such wares are, however, very different from those of the older standards, and comparatively but a small quantity of gold of these lower qualities is manufactured.
The duty of enforcing the law as regards the standard of gold and silver wares was at first entrusted to the Wardens of the Craft in London alone, and they retained that privilege from the year 1300 until 1423, when it was extended to York, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Lincoln, Norwich, Bristol, Salisbury, and Coventry. These provincial offices appear to have retained it only until 1696, for in the act creating the new standard known now-a-days as "Queen Anne Silver," they were not empowered to use the Marks for that standard. In the year 1700, however, the privilege was restored to York, Bristol, and Norwich; Exeter and Chester being also authorised to assay and mark wrought plate. Newcastle-upon-Tyne seems to have been overlooked, as the oversight was remedied in the following year. Until the establishment of these Assay offices the goldsmiths and silversmiths of the places named would, under the provisions of the Act of Edward I. have to get their plate marked in London, the clause referred to being as follows :–" That all the good towns of England, where any goldsmiths dwell shall be ordered, according to this statute, as they of London be; and that one (for the rest) shall come from every good town to London to be ascertained of their touch. And if any goldsmith be attainted that he hath done otherwise, he shall be punished by imprisonment, and by ransom at the King's pleasure." This was the disadvantageous position under which the silversmiths of our own town laboured prior to the establishment of the Sheffield Assay Office. They had to send their work 150 miles to be assayed and marked, at a time when carriage would not only be expensive but slow. It is true that the Chester office was in existence at the time, and was made use of by manufactuicrs residing at Manchester, Liverpool, Shrewsbury, Warrington, and Birmingham; but those residing in Sheffield appear to have availed themselves entirely of the London office; as did also most of the Birmingham manufacturers. Exactly what circumstances gave rise to the silver trade of our town must I suppose be more or less a matter of speculation, but probably it may be regarded as the offspring of the Cutlery Trade, as it arose from a discovery made by a Sheffield mechanic and member of the Cutlers' Company named Thomas Bolsover, who in the year 1742, whilst mending a knife, which was part copper and part silver, accidentally fused the two metals, and from this circumstance saw the possibility of a process for coating copper with a silver covering. His plating laboratory was in the attic of the house afterwards occupied by Messrs. Sherborn and Tudor, and here it was he first successfully united the two metals. This invention was the starting point of a very important trade in plated articles. In the following year he established a Buckle and Button Manufactory on Baker's Hill, where he also made other small articles such as snuff boxes, &c. The difficulty which he had at once to face was the procuring of suitable workmen. Copper braziers, or working silversmiths were wanted, and the men of rural Sheffield were quite unfitted for this new class of work. Bolsover, and those who followed him therefore had to look afield for hands, and in their straits they found it necessary to accept the services of itinerant tinkers, and such workmen as they could induce to come from London, York, Newcastle, Birmingham, or elsewhere. These men, many of whom were very disreputable characters, were not slow to recognise their own importance, and they appear to have been able pretty much to dictate terms to their employers. I am told that it was no uncommon thing for men in a shop to demand £50 or £100 to support them whilst they went off "on the spree," and one instance has been given, in which a party of seven braziers who had been absent for a week (upon money already advanced by their masters! sent two of their number for a further £10 each, to be added to their individual debts, on which condition only they promised to return the following week; and this condition was complied with. I am indebted to Mr. Austin Nicholson for much information as to the early condition of the trade. His father writing in 1850 says that " he remembers two braziers who kept hunters, whilst their employers had to depend upon their own feet; and several had the hairdresser to attend them with powder at their respective manufactories in working hours." By degrees, however, a better state of affairs began to prevail; occasional intervals of bad trade afforded opportunities for discarding the inferior workmen, and those of confirmed irregular habits; whilst the difficulty experienced by persons of moderate means in finding employment for their sons, induced them to apprentice them to the trade; and thus it gradually passed into the hands of a better educated and superior class of men. Bolsover's experience was that of many another inventor, and he did not realize the full benefit of his discovery. It is said that he fell into dishonest hands. Full of confidence in his new wares, he sent out a traveller to call upon his old customers and seek up new ones; but this man proved a knave. Before starting on his journey he had privately arranged with another manufacturer to execute any orders he might get, the profits to be divided between them. The journey was a great success (from the traveller's point of view) but appears to have thoroughly discouraged Bolsover. Although numerous orders for plated buttons were taken, the traveller reported to his master "that he could get no orders, except for the old sort," adding, "that none attached any importance to the new article; it was viewed with perfect indifference, a complete failure, and that any further attempt would be useless." The writer adds that, "Bolsover gave way in disgust in a struggle with unworthy competitors;" but in Hunter's History of Hallamshire, it is stated he that realized property from the manufacture referred to, and 20 years afterwards unwisely spent it in establishing Steel Roiling Mills at Whiteley Wood. Is it not possible that the ruins to be seen near Mr. Gainsford's dam may be the relics of these mills? Bolsover had applied his invention only to the manufacture of such small articles as buttons, snuff boxes, &c.; and until one thinks of the changes which are wrought by fashion, one is inclined to smile at his folly, and wonder how such a man could see the small, and yet be so blind to the larger field open to him ; but we must remember that in the 18th Century the manufacture of buttons and buckles was an immense industry ; and it is said that the change of fashion, caused by the king going to St. Paul's without buckles in 1789 to return thanks, and the subsequent introduction of covered buttons, had the effect of depriving many thousands of hands of employment. It was not long, however, before the "Sheffield Plate," as it was called, was applied to other purposes. Joseph Hancock, who had been Bolsover's apprentice, improved upon his master's invention. It occurred to him to utilize it in the manufacture of larger articles, and he caused considerable astonishment by making a saucepan, silvered inside; subsequently tankards, coffee pots, &c, were made in this manner. For the first 60 years after the discovery, the copper was plated on one side only, and when any article was required to be plated both inside and out, it was made of two sheets of plate, the edges being drawn over so as to expose only the silvered sides to view. In later years it was found possible to coat the copper with silver on both sides. Hancock after a few years, abandoned to others the manufacture of plated goods, and erected a rolling mill in High street (back of premises opposite the end of George street), worked by horse-power, rolling plate for the several manufacturers who had now taken up the trade. Messrs. Winter and Co., and Messrs. Tudor and Leader, also had a similar mill in the Market Place. "Sheffield Plate " as years went by was applied to all the purposes for which silver had previously been used, and candlesticks, knife handles, &c, &c, were for about a century commonly made of it; and so well does it stand the wear of years that articles made many years ago shew (excepting at the edges) very little sign of the usage to which they have been subjected. It is but natural to expect that manufacturers of plated goods would now and again see openings for supplying their customers with silver ones. Thus probably combined trades would arise, and in executing their orders for silver articles, manufacturers would feel the hardship of their lot, in being so far away from that inestimable boon, an Assay office. Before going on to speak of the silver itself, I ought to say that the foregoing remarks refer only to the origin of Sheffield Plate. As far back as 1404, some method of plating must have existed, as a statute was passed (5 Henry IV.) making it penal to gild or silver articles of latten (brass) or copper; with an exception in favour of church ornaments. These, however, must have the copper left bare in the foot, or some other part, " that a man may see whereof the thing is made, for to eschew the deceit aforesaid." In the following year this relaxation was extended to knights' spurs, and barons' apparel.
To be continued.
Trev.
Early History of the Sheffield Assay Office
Re: Early History of the Sheffield Assay Office
At what date, and by whom silver wares were first made in Sheffield, I am unable to say; and as some of the early records at Goldsmiths' Hall are missing, I fear this could not now be ascertained, but it is clear that if any manufacturers at all existed here in 1700, they were an insignificant body, or they would have petitioned for a Hall when the other offices were being re-established. A few years previous to the establishment of the Sheffield Assay office, the refining of the precious metals was introduced into Sheffield, and Mr. John Read, who settled here in 1760, carried on this business to a very considerable extent; first at Green lane, and afterwards at Barton Mill, Attercliffe Bridge. The firm when at Attercliffe in 1797, was "Read, Lucas, and Read." Mr. Samuel Lucas (Mr. Read's partner), who lived at Bolsover, and was an ancestor of the family of Lucas at Dronfield, the celebrated Malleable Iron Founders, in 1815 made a very important discovery. He discovered that silver, when in a molten state, absorbs oxygen. This gas is expelled by the metal when it contracts on cooling, giving rise to the " spitting," which is frequently the cause of so much trouble to the Assayer. Before Mr. Lucas' discovery the explanation of this phenomenon was a complete puzzle. This same Mr. Samuel Lucas took out a patent in 1791, for making crucible cast steel, and another in 1804, for Malleable Iron.
The silver trade probably originated between 1742 and 1773, for we find that on the 1st February, 1773, a petition of several artificers in silver plate in the town and neighbourhood of Sheffield, was presented to the House of Commons, setting forth that a manufacture had of late years begun within the town and neighbourhood, and was then a very considerable trade, very likely to increase, and that the petitioners were under the necessity of sending their goods to London to be assayed and marked, which occasioned much hazard, expense, and delay, and praying for leave to bring in a bill for establishing an assay office in Sheffield. On the following day a petition was presented on behalf of the Birmingham manufacturers, noticing the application from Sheffield, complaining of the inconvenience of having to send their goods to Chester, the nearest Assay office, and praying that if provision should be made for establishing an Assay office at Sheffield, Birmingham might be included. On the 15th and 25th February, petitions of the Goldsmiths' Company, in London, and of goldsmiths and others of the City of London and places adjacent, were presented against the proposed bill. On the following day, a committee was appointed to enquire into the manner of conducting the Assay offices in London, York, Exeter, Bristol, Chester, Norwich, and Newcastle-on-Tyne, and the manner in which wrought plate was assayed and marked, and also into the frauds and abuses that had been committed or attempted to be committed by the manufacturers, or vendors of gold and silver plate and plated work. On the 8th March, a petition of several persons, goldsmiths, &c, of the City of London and places adjacent, was presented to the House, setting forth that frauds and abuses had been committed in the manufacture of gold and silver plate, in or near to the towns of Sheffield and Birmingham, or one of them ; and that divers artificers there had plated with silver, wares of iron, steel, or other metals, and impressed marks thereon in such manner that the wares were made to look like real plate, marked at an assay office; and as a committee had been appointed to enquire into the manner of conducting the several assay offices, praying that the petitioners might be heard before committee to prove the allegations of the petition. It was ordered that the petition be referred to the consideration of the committee, and that the petitioners be heard. It is clear that the London Goldsmiths' Company was jealous of rival offices and was anxious not to lose the work of the towns of Sheffield and Birmingham, and out of this jealousy arose the enquiry which resulted in the passing of a statute establishing the offices at Sheffield and Birmingham, on a basis far more complete and satisfactory than that of the then existing Halls. Still the method of opposition which London thought well to adopt does not commend itself to one's admiration, and I am glad to say recoiled upon its originators. From the report of the committee which was presented to the House on the 29th of April, 1773, I find that at that date the marks of 7 Sheffield and 14 Birmingham firms of silversmiths were entered at Goldsmiths' Hall, London, the parties all being alive at that time. The Sheffield silversmiths were Matthew Fenton, and Richard Creswick; William Hancock ; John Hirst, haft maker, Far Field, near Sheffield; John Robotham; Henry Tudor; Thomas Tyas, Junior; and John Winter. There was also a silver refiner, Mr. Albion Cox, then in the town, who had come here from London.
The report gives the evidences of alleged frauds which were laid before the committee, and these, as regard Sheffield and Birmingham, appear to me remarkably weak. One instance, brought forward by the senior assay master of the Goldsmiths' Company in London, was that a Birmingham silversmith sent in some watch cases, which were found to be of different standards in different parts, viz., the wires 2oz. 3dwt. worse; the covers 1oz. 3dwt. worse; the bottoms 1/2dwt., better. He stated that he had discovered many frauds of the same nature in London but not so bad. He also mentioned an instance of a plated tumbler having been sent for assay by mistake. Two London plate manufacturers stated that a Birmingham snuffer maker, had supplied them with silver snuffers, composed largely of iron, plated with silver. The usual allowance for the cutting parts, rivets and springs was 4dwts.; but the snuffers in question contained not less than 17dwts., and some more.
Other London goldsmiths gave evidence showing that Birmingham and Sheffield manufacturers of plated wares made them to resemble silver so closely that it was very difficult to tell the difference. That they put upon them three or four marks in the same position as would be occupied by the Hall Marks, and although these marks were not imitations of any Hall Mark, ignorant people might be deceived by them if the vendor wished; but all the wares exhibited had been sold as plated, and no evidence was produced that any Birmingham or Sheffield man ever attempted to sell plated goods as silver; or that the marks were put on with any fraudulent intent, on the contrary the witnesses said they did not think there was any such intention. Another witness said that a Sheffield silversmith had 19 months before sold him a dozen silver punch ladles (not Hall Marked), which were 3oz. worse than Standard. These appear to have been very slightly made, and it seems doubtful whether London always required such to be marked, and lastly a London goldsmith stated that he bought some silver-handled knives and forks from a Sheffield silversmith, and paid a few pence per set for having them Hall Marked ; and some time afterwards these were returned to him by his customer as it was found that the letter S only was struck upon them on the part where the Hall Mark usually is placed.
The report gives no sign that the Birmingham silversmiths troubled either to retaliate or defend themselves; but those of Sheffield showed that it would be well for the London men to wash their hands before making such grave charges against others.
Mr. William Hancock, of Sheffield, stated that his work had been injured at Goldsmiths' Hall, by scraping, and that he believed the scrapers could show favour where they thought fit, for by the advice of his polisher, in the previous October, or November, he went to Goldsmiths' Hall, and gave some drink to the Assay Master and scraper; since which he had observed that his plate had been less damaged in scraping. Mr. F. Spilsbury, a London silversmith, also states that he had on several occasions been at Goldsmith's Hall to treat the workmen with drink; and thought it of consequence to be on good terms with the scrapers, as they had the power of showing favour in passing work; for when his plate had been objected to, he had known those difficulties removed by giving liquor at the Hall. I hope no one will think that I am throwing out a hint to those who say they experience difficulties at our own office. It was proved to be the practice both of London and the provincial offices to pass silver 2dwts. worse than standard; and Mr. Albion Cox stated that until he came to Sheffield, and told his employers that it was the custom in London to pass silver 2dwts. worse, all their silver was made standard.
It was also proved to be a common practice to put good pieces in spoons (10, 12, or 15dwts. above standard amongst the bad ones), as a kind of convoy for the rest. That even London makers occasionally concealed pieces of iron in silver snuffers; soldered pieces of standard silver to buckles worse than standard, filed bright in order to obtain the company's marks; loaded the handles of sauce boats with solder, which could only be detected by breaking the handles, and actually soldered " gates " better than standard to buckles and tea tongs, which were many dwts. below standard, in order that the " gates " (or casters' runnings) might be taken as samples and pass these bad wares. To give a "coup de grace," Messrs. Hoyland and Co. employed an agent in London to buy some pieces of silver which had the marks of London workmen, and also of Goldsmiths' Hall upon them; and these upon Assay (under order of the committee) by the Assayer at the Mint, and also by the Assayer at Goldsmiths' Hall, were found to be from 1 1/2dwts. to 1oz., 16dwts. worse than standard. The report of the committee closes as follows (and the non-expression of opinion as to London, is, I think, significant):–
"Your committee, upon closing the evidence relative to the Assay office at Chester, in order to testify their approbation thereof, made the following observation :–viz., that it appears to this committee that the Assay office at Chester has been conducted with fidelity and skill; and upon closing the evidence relative to the Assay office at Newcastle-on-Tyne, your committee made the same observation respecting that office. They further observe that the artificers are now arrived at so great a perfection in plating with silver goods made of base metal, that they very much resemble solid silver; and if the practice which has been introduced of putting marks upon them, somewhat resembling those used at the Assay offices, shall not be restrained, many frauds and impositions may be committed upon the public; and your committee further observe that it appears to them from the manner in which the said Assay offices have been and are now conducted, that they are liable to many abuses and impositions, and that various frauds have been committed upon silver plate, contrary to the legal standard established in this kingdom; and that some further checks and regulations are necessary to be made, in and over the said offices, besides those provided by the Laws now in being."
The recommendations of the committee were not carried out, except in reference to Birmingham and Sheffield. The only general act passed on the subject during the session in which the report was presented was tbe statute repealing capital punishment for forgery of the Assay Marks, and substituting transportation for it, and this was in direct opposition to the evidence adduced.
As you know, the manufacturers of Sheffield and Birmingham obtained the powers they desired; an act being passed in the 13th year of King George III., by which those towns are appointed for the assaying and marking of wrought silver plate. By the act certain persons are incorporated a company to be called and known by the name of "The Guardians of the Standard of Wrought Plate," within the respective towns. Those so appointed for Sheffield were the most Honourable Charles, Marquis of Rockingham, the Earl of Strafford, the Earl of Effingham, Godfrey Bagnall Clark, Anthony Saint Leger, Samuel Shore the Younger, Samuel Tooker, Henry Howard, Walter Oborne, the Reverend James Wilkinson, clerk; Benjamin Roebuck, Thomas Broadbent, John Shore, George Greaves, John Turner, Thomas Bland, George Brittain, Samuel Staniforth, Simon Andrew Younge, Joseph Matthewman, John Hoyland, Henry Tudor, John Winter, Albion Cox, John Rowbotham, Joseph Hancock, Matthew Fenton, William Marsden, Thomas Law, and Joseph Wilson.
These gentlemen were appointed guardians for life, or so long as they resided within 20 miles of Sheffield; and they were authorised to meet on the 5th July, 1773, to elect from amongst themselves four persons to be the Wardens of the Company, and to hold that position for one year only, unless re-elected at the next annual meeting. This meeting is fixed to be held on the first Monday in July in every year, and at it any vacancies which may have occurred amongst the Guardians are to be filled up by the vote of the Guardians present; the complete number always to be 30, of which a certain proportion must be plate workers. To the Guardians is entrusted the duty of electing one or more able and skilful person or persons experienced in the assaying of silver to be the Assayer or Assayers, and to continue in that office for life; and they are annually to appoint four Wardens for the ensuing year. The position of these gentlemen is one of considerable responsibility, and two of them are required to see or take part in several of the most important operations of the office. The enquiry before the parliamentary committee had exposed a number of weak places in the assay laws as then existing, and in the Sheffield and Birmingham Act these are all carefully guarded against. For instance, as regards the quality of the silver passed at these Halls, the Act requires that the Wardens and Assayer shall from time to time make, or have made two indented Trial Plates, one of the Standard 11oz., 2dwts., fine; and the other 11oz., 10dwts. These plates are to be taken to the Mint for examination by the King's or Queen's Assay Master, who is to try them, and if he finds them of the exact standards named, he is to keep one half of each plate for his own use in checking the silver passed at the Sheffield or Birmingham Assay office; and to return the other half to the Sheffield or Birmingham Assay Master for his guidance in assaying the goods brought to his office. The goods when brought to the Assay office are to be carefully examined to see that all the requirements of the Act regarding them have been complied with; after which the samples needful for assay are to be obtained by cutting or scraping. Of the samples of goods which prove standard, a proportion of every parcel equal to four grains per pound Troy is to be made up in a separate packet and placed in the presence of the Wardens and Assayer in a box, called the Diet Box, which box is to be locked with three different locks, the respective keys of which are to be kept by two of the Wardens and the Assayer. Once in each year "the Diet Box" is to be opened in the presence of the Wardens, and the contents are to be carefully packed up in two parcels (if of different standards), and carefully secured and sealed with the seals of the Wardens and Assayer. The parcel is then sent by special messenger to the mint, the messenger being required to swear before the Master or Deputy Master of the Mint that the parcel is the same that he received from the Sheffield or Birmingham Assay office, and that it has not been opened since he received it. A date is shortly afterwards fixed for trial of this Diet, at which ceremony a representative from the Lords of the Treasury is present. The Diet is then tried by the King's or Queen's Assay Master against the Trial Plate before mentioned, and if found equal to the Plate, or better, a certificate to that effect is given, but if found worse the Assayer is to be fined £200. and ever afterwards rendered incapable of acting as an assayer. This provision, that the accuracy of the work of the office should be subject to the supervision and check of the Mint, is most valuable and important, and I think it very desirable that all offices, including Goldsmiths' Hall, should be subject to this independent check. Sheffield and Birmingham are the only offices at present compelled to submit to it, but Chester has this year voluntarily sent its Diet also for examination by the Queen's Assay Master. In the Act, elaborate provisions are made for preventing the marks being used except in the presence of the Wardens and Assayer; also for preventing favour being shown to any person, or patterns divulged. The Act came into operation, as regards the plate workers of Sheffield and Birmingham, on September 29th, 1773; from that date all plate workers residing within 20 miles of either of these towns, were required to register their marks at the office nearest to which they resided under a penalty of £100. The maker's mark to be the first letters of his christian and surnames; and it was rendered illegal for any such manufacturer to sell silver wares (except such as were too small or thin to receive "a touch") until the articles (being of the standard 11oz. 2dwts. fine silver, per pound troy) were marked as follows. (1) With the mark of the maker, or worker; (2) With the Lion Passant; (3) With the mark of the company within whose Assay office such plate was to be assayed and marked, these marks were to denote the "goodness thereof" and the place where it was assayed and marked. For Sheffield the Crown, and for Birmingham an Anchor); and (4) With a distinct variable mark or letter, which is to be changed annually upon the election of new Wardens, and to denote the year in which such plate was marked. The marks for Britannia or "Queen Anne" silver (11oz 10dwts., fine), were to be the same excepting that "the figure of a woman, commonly called Britannia, is to be substituted for the Lion Passant.'' The act inflicts penalties on persons counterfeiting marks, transposing stamps from one piece to another, or striking letters upon goods made of metal plated with silver. It also limits the charge for marking to 1s. per pound troy. Our present charge for everything but very light articles is only half this scale. The office of Assay Master is, of course, a very responsible one, and the Assay Master is therefore required to give a Bond to the Master of the Mint with two sureties in the penalty of £500, for the faithful discharge of his duties and the payment of any fines incurred. He is also required to take an oath before the Master of the Mint, or his Deputy to the effect that he will be faithful in his office; will take no undue profit, will not "touch" (i.e., assay and mark) any silver that is not of lawful standard; will see that all silver wares are of one sort of silver, forward enough in workmanship, and all pieces are affixed together that are intended to be affixed together, and not charged with unnecessary solder; will keep a correct record of all silver brought for assay, and faithfully account to the Company; will not make an assay of any article until marked by the maker; will make every assay to the best of his skill so as to ascertain the true intrinsic standard of the plate assayed; that he will not put or suffer anyone to put into the Diet Box any silver but that which has been scraped, or taken in his presence from the plate which he shall assay and pass for standard; and that he will not either directly or indirectly be concerned in the buying or selling of silver bullion, or the manufacture of Wrought Plate.
To be continued.
Trev.
The silver trade probably originated between 1742 and 1773, for we find that on the 1st February, 1773, a petition of several artificers in silver plate in the town and neighbourhood of Sheffield, was presented to the House of Commons, setting forth that a manufacture had of late years begun within the town and neighbourhood, and was then a very considerable trade, very likely to increase, and that the petitioners were under the necessity of sending their goods to London to be assayed and marked, which occasioned much hazard, expense, and delay, and praying for leave to bring in a bill for establishing an assay office in Sheffield. On the following day a petition was presented on behalf of the Birmingham manufacturers, noticing the application from Sheffield, complaining of the inconvenience of having to send their goods to Chester, the nearest Assay office, and praying that if provision should be made for establishing an Assay office at Sheffield, Birmingham might be included. On the 15th and 25th February, petitions of the Goldsmiths' Company, in London, and of goldsmiths and others of the City of London and places adjacent, were presented against the proposed bill. On the following day, a committee was appointed to enquire into the manner of conducting the Assay offices in London, York, Exeter, Bristol, Chester, Norwich, and Newcastle-on-Tyne, and the manner in which wrought plate was assayed and marked, and also into the frauds and abuses that had been committed or attempted to be committed by the manufacturers, or vendors of gold and silver plate and plated work. On the 8th March, a petition of several persons, goldsmiths, &c, of the City of London and places adjacent, was presented to the House, setting forth that frauds and abuses had been committed in the manufacture of gold and silver plate, in or near to the towns of Sheffield and Birmingham, or one of them ; and that divers artificers there had plated with silver, wares of iron, steel, or other metals, and impressed marks thereon in such manner that the wares were made to look like real plate, marked at an assay office; and as a committee had been appointed to enquire into the manner of conducting the several assay offices, praying that the petitioners might be heard before committee to prove the allegations of the petition. It was ordered that the petition be referred to the consideration of the committee, and that the petitioners be heard. It is clear that the London Goldsmiths' Company was jealous of rival offices and was anxious not to lose the work of the towns of Sheffield and Birmingham, and out of this jealousy arose the enquiry which resulted in the passing of a statute establishing the offices at Sheffield and Birmingham, on a basis far more complete and satisfactory than that of the then existing Halls. Still the method of opposition which London thought well to adopt does not commend itself to one's admiration, and I am glad to say recoiled upon its originators. From the report of the committee which was presented to the House on the 29th of April, 1773, I find that at that date the marks of 7 Sheffield and 14 Birmingham firms of silversmiths were entered at Goldsmiths' Hall, London, the parties all being alive at that time. The Sheffield silversmiths were Matthew Fenton, and Richard Creswick; William Hancock ; John Hirst, haft maker, Far Field, near Sheffield; John Robotham; Henry Tudor; Thomas Tyas, Junior; and John Winter. There was also a silver refiner, Mr. Albion Cox, then in the town, who had come here from London.
The report gives the evidences of alleged frauds which were laid before the committee, and these, as regard Sheffield and Birmingham, appear to me remarkably weak. One instance, brought forward by the senior assay master of the Goldsmiths' Company in London, was that a Birmingham silversmith sent in some watch cases, which were found to be of different standards in different parts, viz., the wires 2oz. 3dwt. worse; the covers 1oz. 3dwt. worse; the bottoms 1/2dwt., better. He stated that he had discovered many frauds of the same nature in London but not so bad. He also mentioned an instance of a plated tumbler having been sent for assay by mistake. Two London plate manufacturers stated that a Birmingham snuffer maker, had supplied them with silver snuffers, composed largely of iron, plated with silver. The usual allowance for the cutting parts, rivets and springs was 4dwts.; but the snuffers in question contained not less than 17dwts., and some more.
Other London goldsmiths gave evidence showing that Birmingham and Sheffield manufacturers of plated wares made them to resemble silver so closely that it was very difficult to tell the difference. That they put upon them three or four marks in the same position as would be occupied by the Hall Marks, and although these marks were not imitations of any Hall Mark, ignorant people might be deceived by them if the vendor wished; but all the wares exhibited had been sold as plated, and no evidence was produced that any Birmingham or Sheffield man ever attempted to sell plated goods as silver; or that the marks were put on with any fraudulent intent, on the contrary the witnesses said they did not think there was any such intention. Another witness said that a Sheffield silversmith had 19 months before sold him a dozen silver punch ladles (not Hall Marked), which were 3oz. worse than Standard. These appear to have been very slightly made, and it seems doubtful whether London always required such to be marked, and lastly a London goldsmith stated that he bought some silver-handled knives and forks from a Sheffield silversmith, and paid a few pence per set for having them Hall Marked ; and some time afterwards these were returned to him by his customer as it was found that the letter S only was struck upon them on the part where the Hall Mark usually is placed.
The report gives no sign that the Birmingham silversmiths troubled either to retaliate or defend themselves; but those of Sheffield showed that it would be well for the London men to wash their hands before making such grave charges against others.
Mr. William Hancock, of Sheffield, stated that his work had been injured at Goldsmiths' Hall, by scraping, and that he believed the scrapers could show favour where they thought fit, for by the advice of his polisher, in the previous October, or November, he went to Goldsmiths' Hall, and gave some drink to the Assay Master and scraper; since which he had observed that his plate had been less damaged in scraping. Mr. F. Spilsbury, a London silversmith, also states that he had on several occasions been at Goldsmith's Hall to treat the workmen with drink; and thought it of consequence to be on good terms with the scrapers, as they had the power of showing favour in passing work; for when his plate had been objected to, he had known those difficulties removed by giving liquor at the Hall. I hope no one will think that I am throwing out a hint to those who say they experience difficulties at our own office. It was proved to be the practice both of London and the provincial offices to pass silver 2dwts. worse than standard; and Mr. Albion Cox stated that until he came to Sheffield, and told his employers that it was the custom in London to pass silver 2dwts. worse, all their silver was made standard.
It was also proved to be a common practice to put good pieces in spoons (10, 12, or 15dwts. above standard amongst the bad ones), as a kind of convoy for the rest. That even London makers occasionally concealed pieces of iron in silver snuffers; soldered pieces of standard silver to buckles worse than standard, filed bright in order to obtain the company's marks; loaded the handles of sauce boats with solder, which could only be detected by breaking the handles, and actually soldered " gates " better than standard to buckles and tea tongs, which were many dwts. below standard, in order that the " gates " (or casters' runnings) might be taken as samples and pass these bad wares. To give a "coup de grace," Messrs. Hoyland and Co. employed an agent in London to buy some pieces of silver which had the marks of London workmen, and also of Goldsmiths' Hall upon them; and these upon Assay (under order of the committee) by the Assayer at the Mint, and also by the Assayer at Goldsmiths' Hall, were found to be from 1 1/2dwts. to 1oz., 16dwts. worse than standard. The report of the committee closes as follows (and the non-expression of opinion as to London, is, I think, significant):–
"Your committee, upon closing the evidence relative to the Assay office at Chester, in order to testify their approbation thereof, made the following observation :–viz., that it appears to this committee that the Assay office at Chester has been conducted with fidelity and skill; and upon closing the evidence relative to the Assay office at Newcastle-on-Tyne, your committee made the same observation respecting that office. They further observe that the artificers are now arrived at so great a perfection in plating with silver goods made of base metal, that they very much resemble solid silver; and if the practice which has been introduced of putting marks upon them, somewhat resembling those used at the Assay offices, shall not be restrained, many frauds and impositions may be committed upon the public; and your committee further observe that it appears to them from the manner in which the said Assay offices have been and are now conducted, that they are liable to many abuses and impositions, and that various frauds have been committed upon silver plate, contrary to the legal standard established in this kingdom; and that some further checks and regulations are necessary to be made, in and over the said offices, besides those provided by the Laws now in being."
The recommendations of the committee were not carried out, except in reference to Birmingham and Sheffield. The only general act passed on the subject during the session in which the report was presented was tbe statute repealing capital punishment for forgery of the Assay Marks, and substituting transportation for it, and this was in direct opposition to the evidence adduced.
As you know, the manufacturers of Sheffield and Birmingham obtained the powers they desired; an act being passed in the 13th year of King George III., by which those towns are appointed for the assaying and marking of wrought silver plate. By the act certain persons are incorporated a company to be called and known by the name of "The Guardians of the Standard of Wrought Plate," within the respective towns. Those so appointed for Sheffield were the most Honourable Charles, Marquis of Rockingham, the Earl of Strafford, the Earl of Effingham, Godfrey Bagnall Clark, Anthony Saint Leger, Samuel Shore the Younger, Samuel Tooker, Henry Howard, Walter Oborne, the Reverend James Wilkinson, clerk; Benjamin Roebuck, Thomas Broadbent, John Shore, George Greaves, John Turner, Thomas Bland, George Brittain, Samuel Staniforth, Simon Andrew Younge, Joseph Matthewman, John Hoyland, Henry Tudor, John Winter, Albion Cox, John Rowbotham, Joseph Hancock, Matthew Fenton, William Marsden, Thomas Law, and Joseph Wilson.
These gentlemen were appointed guardians for life, or so long as they resided within 20 miles of Sheffield; and they were authorised to meet on the 5th July, 1773, to elect from amongst themselves four persons to be the Wardens of the Company, and to hold that position for one year only, unless re-elected at the next annual meeting. This meeting is fixed to be held on the first Monday in July in every year, and at it any vacancies which may have occurred amongst the Guardians are to be filled up by the vote of the Guardians present; the complete number always to be 30, of which a certain proportion must be plate workers. To the Guardians is entrusted the duty of electing one or more able and skilful person or persons experienced in the assaying of silver to be the Assayer or Assayers, and to continue in that office for life; and they are annually to appoint four Wardens for the ensuing year. The position of these gentlemen is one of considerable responsibility, and two of them are required to see or take part in several of the most important operations of the office. The enquiry before the parliamentary committee had exposed a number of weak places in the assay laws as then existing, and in the Sheffield and Birmingham Act these are all carefully guarded against. For instance, as regards the quality of the silver passed at these Halls, the Act requires that the Wardens and Assayer shall from time to time make, or have made two indented Trial Plates, one of the Standard 11oz., 2dwts., fine; and the other 11oz., 10dwts. These plates are to be taken to the Mint for examination by the King's or Queen's Assay Master, who is to try them, and if he finds them of the exact standards named, he is to keep one half of each plate for his own use in checking the silver passed at the Sheffield or Birmingham Assay office; and to return the other half to the Sheffield or Birmingham Assay Master for his guidance in assaying the goods brought to his office. The goods when brought to the Assay office are to be carefully examined to see that all the requirements of the Act regarding them have been complied with; after which the samples needful for assay are to be obtained by cutting or scraping. Of the samples of goods which prove standard, a proportion of every parcel equal to four grains per pound Troy is to be made up in a separate packet and placed in the presence of the Wardens and Assayer in a box, called the Diet Box, which box is to be locked with three different locks, the respective keys of which are to be kept by two of the Wardens and the Assayer. Once in each year "the Diet Box" is to be opened in the presence of the Wardens, and the contents are to be carefully packed up in two parcels (if of different standards), and carefully secured and sealed with the seals of the Wardens and Assayer. The parcel is then sent by special messenger to the mint, the messenger being required to swear before the Master or Deputy Master of the Mint that the parcel is the same that he received from the Sheffield or Birmingham Assay office, and that it has not been opened since he received it. A date is shortly afterwards fixed for trial of this Diet, at which ceremony a representative from the Lords of the Treasury is present. The Diet is then tried by the King's or Queen's Assay Master against the Trial Plate before mentioned, and if found equal to the Plate, or better, a certificate to that effect is given, but if found worse the Assayer is to be fined £200. and ever afterwards rendered incapable of acting as an assayer. This provision, that the accuracy of the work of the office should be subject to the supervision and check of the Mint, is most valuable and important, and I think it very desirable that all offices, including Goldsmiths' Hall, should be subject to this independent check. Sheffield and Birmingham are the only offices at present compelled to submit to it, but Chester has this year voluntarily sent its Diet also for examination by the Queen's Assay Master. In the Act, elaborate provisions are made for preventing the marks being used except in the presence of the Wardens and Assayer; also for preventing favour being shown to any person, or patterns divulged. The Act came into operation, as regards the plate workers of Sheffield and Birmingham, on September 29th, 1773; from that date all plate workers residing within 20 miles of either of these towns, were required to register their marks at the office nearest to which they resided under a penalty of £100. The maker's mark to be the first letters of his christian and surnames; and it was rendered illegal for any such manufacturer to sell silver wares (except such as were too small or thin to receive "a touch") until the articles (being of the standard 11oz. 2dwts. fine silver, per pound troy) were marked as follows. (1) With the mark of the maker, or worker; (2) With the Lion Passant; (3) With the mark of the company within whose Assay office such plate was to be assayed and marked, these marks were to denote the "goodness thereof" and the place where it was assayed and marked. For Sheffield the Crown, and for Birmingham an Anchor); and (4) With a distinct variable mark or letter, which is to be changed annually upon the election of new Wardens, and to denote the year in which such plate was marked. The marks for Britannia or "Queen Anne" silver (11oz 10dwts., fine), were to be the same excepting that "the figure of a woman, commonly called Britannia, is to be substituted for the Lion Passant.'' The act inflicts penalties on persons counterfeiting marks, transposing stamps from one piece to another, or striking letters upon goods made of metal plated with silver. It also limits the charge for marking to 1s. per pound troy. Our present charge for everything but very light articles is only half this scale. The office of Assay Master is, of course, a very responsible one, and the Assay Master is therefore required to give a Bond to the Master of the Mint with two sureties in the penalty of £500, for the faithful discharge of his duties and the payment of any fines incurred. He is also required to take an oath before the Master of the Mint, or his Deputy to the effect that he will be faithful in his office; will take no undue profit, will not "touch" (i.e., assay and mark) any silver that is not of lawful standard; will see that all silver wares are of one sort of silver, forward enough in workmanship, and all pieces are affixed together that are intended to be affixed together, and not charged with unnecessary solder; will keep a correct record of all silver brought for assay, and faithfully account to the Company; will not make an assay of any article until marked by the maker; will make every assay to the best of his skill so as to ascertain the true intrinsic standard of the plate assayed; that he will not put or suffer anyone to put into the Diet Box any silver but that which has been scraped, or taken in his presence from the plate which he shall assay and pass for standard; and that he will not either directly or indirectly be concerned in the buying or selling of silver bullion, or the manufacture of Wrought Plate.
To be continued.
Trev.
Re: Early History of the Sheffield Assay Office
The Wardens, too, are required after their election, and before taking upon themselves the execution of the office, to take an oath before a Justice of the Peace residing in the County where the Assay office is established. In this oath they undertake faithfully to discharge their duties. Not to discover to any person, any "pattern, design, or invention of any Plate brought to the office for assay "; or knowingly permit the same to be viewed by any persons but those necessarily employed in the Assay office, and in all things to conform to the rules laid down in the Act of Parliament. This oath is usually administered at the Town Hall, but it is a somewhat less imposing ceremony than the swearing in of the Wardens of the Cutlers' Company, the act not having provided for the appointment of that "rara avis" a Beadle; though it is clear that at one time (1794 and 1796) there was a servant, David Senior, in livery, as I find bills for his clothing, and amongst them one for green serge. In the absence of a reliable picture we must imagine this gorgeous individual for ourselves. The act of course requires the guardians to provide within the Town a proper place for an " office for receiving-in, assaying and delivering out all Wrought Plate brought to be assayed." I am afraid I must have wearied you with this long abstract of the Act, but my paper would hardly be complete without it, and I must therefore ask you to forgive my having so heavily taxed your patience. The first meeting of the guardians of the Sheffield Company was held at the sign of " the George " on the 5th July, 1773, on which occasion the Right Honourable Thomas, Earl of Effingham, took the chair. There were also present Walter Oborne, Esq., a Justice of the Peace for the West Biding of Yorkshire, and 16 other gentlemen, with whose names I will not trouble you.
At this meeting Mr. Gilbert Dixon was elected the Clerk of the Company, and ordered to enter their acts, proceedings, and orders, "in a Book." This is the Minute Book, still in use by our Law Clerk. Messrs. Joseph Hancock, John Rowbotham, Simon Andrew Younge, and Samuel Staniforth were elected the four Wardens for the ensuing year. The two first named were the Acting Wardens, the other two being being what we now call Honorary Wardens. Mr. Daniel Bradbury, of Carey lane, London, was unanimously appointed the Assayer. He had as a competitor a Sheffield man, William Fullard. The office was to be open two days in each week (Monday and Thursday). The date letter for the ensuing year was to be an old text capital letter 'E'. This meeting was adjourned to Monday the 2nd August, at the house of Mr. Samuel Glanville, the sign of the " Angel," in Sheffield, when arrangements as to management, and salaries of officers were to be made; Mr. Bradbury in the meantime to give the required bond, and take the oath before the Honourable Charles Sloane Cadogan, Master of His Majesty's Mint, or his Deputy. At the meeting of July 5th, it was noticed that the Earl of Strafford was absent, the reason of this was that in the Act the name appears as the Earl of Stafford, owing to a blunder on the part of the King's printer. In the printed copies of the Bill, as it passed the House of Commons, the "name is right (Strafford); but the discrepancy gave rise to some correspondence with London, part of which, as it is amusing, I will venture to give. The Law Clerk had been writing to Mr. Osborne Barwell to look into the matter, fearing that as there was no Earl of Stafford existing at the time of passing the Act, the earl was a nonentity, and consequently that there were only 29 Guardians, instead of 30, the number intended. The reply is as follows :– "Abingdon street, Aug. 7th, 1773. Sir,–I am very sorry for the blunder the King's printer has made in your act, but he is such a Coxcomb, that he generally does the same thing at least a dozen times in a session. Nay! he blunders often in the Land Tax and Malt Bills. This mistake is of no manner of consequence, nor is it worth printing the sheet over again. I have this morning examined the original record, where the word is written Strafford plain, without any erazure or interlineation, and therefore his Lordship is sufficiently authorized to act. I know the reason has been, he knew there was such a town as Stafford, and therefore very wisely thought to correct the Record. There was an act passed the year before last for improving the navigation of the Thames, whereby the Commissioners were obliged to make their locks at least eighteeen feet wide, he printed it eighty. The commissioners could not act; but upon searching the Record it was found to be eighteen, and the reason he gave for the alteration was, that he had measured it with a rule on the ground, and thought eighteen was too little, and that it ought to be eighty. In short he is the most extraordinary man I believe that ever Scotland furnished, for he is of that country.–I am, your most obliged hble. Servt., Osb. Barwell."
At the adjourned meeting the Earl of Effingham was again in the chair and there were in addition 18 other guardians, including Mr. Walter Oborne, and the Rev. Jas. Wilkinson (Vicar of Sheffield). At this meeting further arrangements were made as to hours of business, calling of special meetings, &c. The salary of the Assayer was fixed at £50 per annum, with residence in the office; and Mr. Henry Tudor and Mr. John Winter were empowered to contract in their own names for " that dwelling house in Norfolk street, in Sheffield, wherein Mrs. Eleanor Green, deceased, lately dwelt, to be used aa an Assay office, or for any other building in the Town of Sheffield they might think suitable for the purpose." A finance committee of eight guardians was also appointed.
The house first taken appears to have belonged to a Mr. Elliott, and was only for a few months used as an Assay office, the guardians removing in June, 1774, into the "dwelling house lately occupied by Mr. Thomas Bolsover, situate up a court in Norfolk street, Sheffield." This house belonged to a Mr. Joseph Mitchell, of Sheffield, yeoman, and was taken on lease for seven years, at the annual rent of 10 guineas. The office was opened for work on September 20th, 1773, and the entries appearing in the books on that day are:–Tudor and Leader, 1 Goblet New Sterling, 1lb. 8oz. 7dwts. 18grs.; 1 chased cup, Old Sterling, 2lbs. 5oz. 14dwts. Fenton, Creswick, and Co., 13 pair candlesticks, 17lbs. 4oz. 5dwts. The new year, 1774, appears to have been welcomed with a little mild dissipation at the office; a dozen glasses being then purchased and a small sum expended in wine, pipes, and tobacco.
At the annual meeting held in the following July, at which the Earl of Effingham again presided, it was ordered that the Acting Wardens be paid £25 each for their services during the past year; and that a silver cup of sterling standard, not exceeding the value of ten guineas, be presented to each of what we now call the Hon. Wardens, Messrs. Samuel Staniforth, and Simon Younge, they having declined any pecuniary recompense for their attendance. I mentioned just now that by their Acts the offices at Birmingham and Sheffield are bound to provide Trial Plates of exact legal standards to be kept at the Mint; against which the King's or Queen's Assay Master is to try the Diet, representing the silver passed at the respective offices during the previous year. You will remember that in the report of the Parliamentary Committee it is stated that it was the practice of the London Goldsmiths' Company to pass and mark silver very considerably worse than the law required, and this was one of the first difficulties the guardians of the two new offices had to face. The Birmingham guardians were the first to discover that by their act the manufacturers in their town were heavily handicapped, and on August 8th, 1775, they wrote, asking the Sheffield Guardians to join them in applying to Parliament to get the grievance remedied. It was proved by both the Birmingham and Sheffield Assay Masters that in spite of the report of the Parliamentary Committee, London was still passing goods from 2 1/2dwts. to 7dwts below standard, and recourse was had to the members for Yorkshire and Warwickshire to take steps for introducing a Bill to redress the grievances complained of. A Committee of the House was, I believe, appointed to enquire into the matter, but, so far as I can see, no legislation resulted. The funds of the Sheffield office were very low, and the guardians naturally shrank from incurring any great expense in the matter, especially as it chiefly concerned the Birmingham manufacturers. Still I have no doubt that the enquiry and agitation had a very considerable effect n bringing about the better state of affairs which now prevails. During the first eleven years of its existence the Sheffield Guardians struggled vainly to make ends meet; and at last determined that there was nothing for it but to go to Parliament for powers to charge a higher rate for marking small articles. In 1781 they had found it necessary to accept a loan of £100 from one of the guardians, Mr. John Winter, to enable them to pay arrears of salaries and other debts; and in July, 1784, the same good friend of the office joined Mr. Henry Tudor in advancing the money necessary for obtaining another Act. The Act referred to was duly passed, and in August, 1784, a meeting of the guardians was held to make arrangements for putting it into operation. This act, in addition to legalising an increased charge for marking silver, also contained some most important provisions relating to the marks which manufacturers of goods, plated with silver, might put upon their wares. The first Sheffield and Birmingham Act inflicts a penalty of £100 upon anyone striking any letter or letters upon things made of metal plated with silver ; and the makers of such goods were consequently deterred from striking their names upon them. The new Act empowers such manufacturers to strike their names, together with a mark, on their goods, without incurring this penalty, provided that the surname, or name, or firm were in plain and legible characters, and struck with one punch only ; the name to be accompanied by some device or figure to be approved by the guardians of the Sheffield Assay office, and registered in their book. A penalty of £100 is imposed on any manufacturer in Sheffield, or within 100 miles radius, who should strike a name or mark without previously registering it at this Assay office, or who should use any other manufacturer's mark. Under this Act the Birmingham manufacturers had to register their marks at Sheffield (Birmingham being only about 76 miles distant), and I cannot understand why they ever allowed it to become law. Certain it is that the enactment was felt to be a very great grievance, and for 40 years the manufacturers of that town groaned under it; whilst Sheffield men, too, must have found it a heavy infliction. The register of these marks is very interesting. Some of the impressions are 1 1/4 inch long, and must have been a disfigurement on any article. The difficulty of striking such an impression with one punch only, will be appreciated by manufacturers. Many attempts were made to evade the act, and the Sheffield Guardians drew some considerable sums from Birmingham in the shape of fines. I think it speaks well for the temper of the Birmingham Guardians, that, in spite of the irritation which this Act unquestionably created, a most cordial and friendly feeling has always existed between that office and our own. In April, 1824, the Birmingham Guardians went to Parliament for a new act, and in their bill had introduced a clause giving them powers to register Platers' Marks; but this was so strongly opposed by Sheffield, Mr. John Settle and Col. Thomas Leader taking an important part in the matter, that the clause was withdrawn, it being represented by the commissioners of the Board of Trade, that the Government intended to obtain an act for consolidating and regulating the provisions of existing acts, and that they would therein deal with the question of the marks to be used. I do not find that any such most desirable act was passed; but the platers seem to have considered themselves absolved from further observance of the Sheffield enactment, as no Birmingham mark is registered after that date, and only four Sheffield ones within the next 12 years, after which no plater's mark is entered in the register. I find that during the time the Act was in full operation 77 Birmingham, 1 London, and only 51 Sheffield Marks were registered, so that Birmingham had good cause to feel dissatisfied. I am inclined to think that manufacturers as a rule preferred selling their wares without any letters to denote the maker, rather than mark them with the prescribed punches; for although I have seen many examples of Old Sheffield Plate, I have not come across any articles bearing these objectionable impressions.
From the date of the passing of their second act the guardians of the Sheffield office gradually got free from their financial difficulties, and by the year 1793, they had not only paid off all their liabilities but had accumulated sufficient funds to justify their building an office, and accordingly they purchased from Mr. Edward Sheppard, for the sum of £70, some leasehold premises situate in "the Farr Gate, Sheffield," in the occupation of Matt. Osbourn. These " ancient buildings " were pulled down, and the substantial brick dwelling house and office, which we all remember so well, were erected on the site at a cost of about £900.
They were built by John Senior and Edward Drury, Carpenters, from plans prepared by Joseph Badger and Son, Joiners and Carpenters, of Brinsworth's Orchard, afterwards 1, Orchard street. The land was originally held on lease from the Duke of Norfolk, but the guardians ultimately bought the freehold for £75. The business of the office was removed to the new premises about June or September 1795. The financial position still continued to improve, and at the annual meeting, July, 1819, the Guardians felt themselves justified in reducing the charges for marking by 25 per cent.; and this happy state of affairs continued until 1832, when they unfortunately found it necessary to fall back upon their old scale. This must have been a great grief to them, and it is to be deplored by us even at the present day, for up to that time, it was the custom of the Guardians, after the annual meeting, to adjourn to dine at the Angel Inn, or Tontine; of the proceedings there I find no minutes; but the few bills which I have turned up are interesting and suggestive. Here is one from the " Tontine."
Sad to say, though fortune has again smiled upon the office, the Guardians have never regained their former jovial spirits; and a dinner which might perhaps have rivalled the Feast of the Cutlers, had it not been for the depression of 1832, is a thing of the past. The depression referred to appears to have lasted in a more or less marked degree until the year 1843; and this year is notable not only as the termination of "bad times," but also because in it, electro-plating, as now understood, was first commenced as a business in Sheffield. Three years previously Mr. John Wright, a Surgeon, of Birmingham, and a relative of my own, had discovered the value and use of Cyanide of Potassium for the purposes of electro-plating, and he sold his invention to Messrs. Elkington of that town, who in 1840, obtained a patent for the process. Mr. John Harrison, of Norfolk Works, Scotland street, Sheffield, being impressed with its merits, obtained from them a licence to use the process, and sent over to Birmingham Mr. George Walker (whom he engaged as an operative plater), to be instructed at Messrs. Elkmgton's Works. On the 1st July, 1843, Mr. Harrison advertised in the Sheffield Independent, that he had commenced the business of electro-plating, &c.,with Elkington's Patent. Mr. Walker only remained in Mr. Harrison's service about 18 months, and in 1845, commenced business as an Electro Plater on his own account; he being the founder of the present firm of " Walker and Hall." The early electro-platers no doubt had many difficulties and prejudices to overcome, and even so late as 1851, the Jury in their report on the Sheffield goods at the Exhibition of that year, " desire to guard against being considered as expressing an opinion on the merits of the application of the electro-process of silver plating to objects of domestic use. They desire only to commend the artistic application of this discovery, to which alone they think it adapted." But the process, as we now know, was destined to make its way and to supersede the celebrated "Sheffield Plate," which, for exactly 100 years, had held its own in every market.
It has sometimes been said that electro-plate has interfered with the silver trade of the town, but the books of the office show no sign of this. From about the year 1819 to 1843, the weight of silver sent for assay was on the decline, but from the latter date it has been gradually increasing, the weight marked last year being more than four times the amount marked in 1843 ; and this, notwithstanding the fact that since 1854, Sheffield manufacturers have been free to send their goods to London and have unfortunately availed themselves of that power to a pretty large extent. A Chart which I have prepared for this occasion showing the fluctuation in the weight of silver assayed annually at the Sheffield office is exceedingly interesting*, the effect of the American war for independence at the close of the 18th Century, and various other wars and financial panics being well marked. It is also noticeable that the imposition of duty on silver produced practically no effect on the volume of trade; an increase occasionally taking place the year after the duty was imposed.
During the 116 years which the office has been in existence eight persons have held the position of Assay Master, viz., Daniel Bradbury, 16 years; Geo. Dickinson, 18 years ; Samuel Hancock (formerly Acting Warden), 2 years; Matthew Sayles, of Sheffield, 24 1/4 years ; Lewis Chas. Sayles, 15 years, jointly with his father, and 21 years alone; John Watson (my father), 24 years; Wm, Hy. Watson (my brother), 10 years, jointly with my father, and 11 years jointly with myself. The Guardians have also had the services of five Law Clerks, viz., Gilbert Dixon, 11 years; Mark Skelton, of Braithwaite Hall, Wakefield, 41 1/2 years; John Watson, 24 years; Hy. Ed. Watson, 31 1/2 years ; and Wm. B. Esam, our present law clerk, 8 years. In the year 1784, the duty on silver plate, which was first introduced in 1720 (being then 6d. per oz.), and had been superseded in 1758 by a dealers' license of 40s. per annum, was re-imposed, and to the Assay offices was entrusted the responsibility of collecting it; a new mark (the sovereign's head), being introduced, to be struck upon the plate in addition to the several other marks directed by law. This mark for the first two years was in intaglio instead of in relief, and appeared like the matrix of a seal instead of its impression. Subsequently to 1785-6, it has been struck in relief like the other assay marks. Mr. Mark Skelton and his successors have held the combined offices of Law Clerk and Accomptant (or Receiver of Duties). The duty imposed on silver in 1784 was sixpence per ounce. This was doubled in the year 1797, making it Is. per ounce, and it is a curious fact that from the 13th July, 1797, to the 16th April 1798, the Sheffield office indicated the receipt of this doubled duty by striking the King's Head twice upon each article. After the latter date the King's Head was struck once only in accordance with the wish of the manufacturers and the practice at Goldsmiths' Hall. The duty paid by the manufacturer at the present time on unfinished wares is practically Is. 3d. per ounce.
Upon the complete list of Guardians, which I have, at considerable trouble, compiled from the Minute Book, I find 179 names, and it is only right that I should mention some of those who have taken the most active part in guiding the affairs of the office. First and foremost deservedly comes the name of the Earl of Effingham, who presided at the first Seven Annual Meetings of Guardians, and at intervals subsequently occupied the chair, evidently taking a very deep interest in the welfare of the office. His successor (Richard) was elected a Guardian in 1792, and was an almost constant attendant at the meetings. I find that he was present at 17 Annual Meetings in succession, and chairman at 15 of those meetings. His last attendance was in 1816, and the removal of his name from the list was a very great loss to the Guardians. The Lords Wharncliffe and Fitzwilliam have also assisted by their presence and advice on several occasions, though for over 50 years they have, I regret to say, been absent from the Board room. The Vicars of Sheffield (Rev. Jas. Wilkinson, Rev. Thos. Sutton, and Rev. Thos. Sale), all took a prominent part in the management of our affairs; but since the death of Dr. Sale the Guardians have laboured on " without benefit of clergy," our present esteemed Vicar evidently believing that we have been so well trained up by his predecessors, that we are not likely to depart from the straight path. Other names which I must mention are Samuel Tooker, of Moorgate, Benjamin Roebuck, John Turner, Simon Andrews Younge, Hy. Tudor, John Winter, Vincent Eyre, sen., John Reed, John Greaves, Chas. Proctor, Anthony Hufton, John Law, Hugh Parker, of Woodthorpe, Gamaliel Milner, of Attercliffe, Thomas Watson, Robt. Gainsford, Col. Thos. Leader, John Settle, John Watson, Josh. Dixon Skelton, of Middlewood, Hy. Wilkinson, Hewan Holt, Wm. Watson, of Shirecliffe, Hy. Thorpe Skelton, Wm. Fredk. Dixon, Saml. Bailey, John Rodgers, Saml. Roberts, junr., Jonthn. Buxton, E. Stirling Howard, and Thos. Jessop.
To be continued.
Trev.
At this meeting Mr. Gilbert Dixon was elected the Clerk of the Company, and ordered to enter their acts, proceedings, and orders, "in a Book." This is the Minute Book, still in use by our Law Clerk. Messrs. Joseph Hancock, John Rowbotham, Simon Andrew Younge, and Samuel Staniforth were elected the four Wardens for the ensuing year. The two first named were the Acting Wardens, the other two being being what we now call Honorary Wardens. Mr. Daniel Bradbury, of Carey lane, London, was unanimously appointed the Assayer. He had as a competitor a Sheffield man, William Fullard. The office was to be open two days in each week (Monday and Thursday). The date letter for the ensuing year was to be an old text capital letter 'E'. This meeting was adjourned to Monday the 2nd August, at the house of Mr. Samuel Glanville, the sign of the " Angel," in Sheffield, when arrangements as to management, and salaries of officers were to be made; Mr. Bradbury in the meantime to give the required bond, and take the oath before the Honourable Charles Sloane Cadogan, Master of His Majesty's Mint, or his Deputy. At the meeting of July 5th, it was noticed that the Earl of Strafford was absent, the reason of this was that in the Act the name appears as the Earl of Stafford, owing to a blunder on the part of the King's printer. In the printed copies of the Bill, as it passed the House of Commons, the "name is right (Strafford); but the discrepancy gave rise to some correspondence with London, part of which, as it is amusing, I will venture to give. The Law Clerk had been writing to Mr. Osborne Barwell to look into the matter, fearing that as there was no Earl of Stafford existing at the time of passing the Act, the earl was a nonentity, and consequently that there were only 29 Guardians, instead of 30, the number intended. The reply is as follows :– "Abingdon street, Aug. 7th, 1773. Sir,–I am very sorry for the blunder the King's printer has made in your act, but he is such a Coxcomb, that he generally does the same thing at least a dozen times in a session. Nay! he blunders often in the Land Tax and Malt Bills. This mistake is of no manner of consequence, nor is it worth printing the sheet over again. I have this morning examined the original record, where the word is written Strafford plain, without any erazure or interlineation, and therefore his Lordship is sufficiently authorized to act. I know the reason has been, he knew there was such a town as Stafford, and therefore very wisely thought to correct the Record. There was an act passed the year before last for improving the navigation of the Thames, whereby the Commissioners were obliged to make their locks at least eighteeen feet wide, he printed it eighty. The commissioners could not act; but upon searching the Record it was found to be eighteen, and the reason he gave for the alteration was, that he had measured it with a rule on the ground, and thought eighteen was too little, and that it ought to be eighty. In short he is the most extraordinary man I believe that ever Scotland furnished, for he is of that country.–I am, your most obliged hble. Servt., Osb. Barwell."
At the adjourned meeting the Earl of Effingham was again in the chair and there were in addition 18 other guardians, including Mr. Walter Oborne, and the Rev. Jas. Wilkinson (Vicar of Sheffield). At this meeting further arrangements were made as to hours of business, calling of special meetings, &c. The salary of the Assayer was fixed at £50 per annum, with residence in the office; and Mr. Henry Tudor and Mr. John Winter were empowered to contract in their own names for " that dwelling house in Norfolk street, in Sheffield, wherein Mrs. Eleanor Green, deceased, lately dwelt, to be used aa an Assay office, or for any other building in the Town of Sheffield they might think suitable for the purpose." A finance committee of eight guardians was also appointed.
The house first taken appears to have belonged to a Mr. Elliott, and was only for a few months used as an Assay office, the guardians removing in June, 1774, into the "dwelling house lately occupied by Mr. Thomas Bolsover, situate up a court in Norfolk street, Sheffield." This house belonged to a Mr. Joseph Mitchell, of Sheffield, yeoman, and was taken on lease for seven years, at the annual rent of 10 guineas. The office was opened for work on September 20th, 1773, and the entries appearing in the books on that day are:–Tudor and Leader, 1 Goblet New Sterling, 1lb. 8oz. 7dwts. 18grs.; 1 chased cup, Old Sterling, 2lbs. 5oz. 14dwts. Fenton, Creswick, and Co., 13 pair candlesticks, 17lbs. 4oz. 5dwts. The new year, 1774, appears to have been welcomed with a little mild dissipation at the office; a dozen glasses being then purchased and a small sum expended in wine, pipes, and tobacco.
At the annual meeting held in the following July, at which the Earl of Effingham again presided, it was ordered that the Acting Wardens be paid £25 each for their services during the past year; and that a silver cup of sterling standard, not exceeding the value of ten guineas, be presented to each of what we now call the Hon. Wardens, Messrs. Samuel Staniforth, and Simon Younge, they having declined any pecuniary recompense for their attendance. I mentioned just now that by their Acts the offices at Birmingham and Sheffield are bound to provide Trial Plates of exact legal standards to be kept at the Mint; against which the King's or Queen's Assay Master is to try the Diet, representing the silver passed at the respective offices during the previous year. You will remember that in the report of the Parliamentary Committee it is stated that it was the practice of the London Goldsmiths' Company to pass and mark silver very considerably worse than the law required, and this was one of the first difficulties the guardians of the two new offices had to face. The Birmingham guardians were the first to discover that by their act the manufacturers in their town were heavily handicapped, and on August 8th, 1775, they wrote, asking the Sheffield Guardians to join them in applying to Parliament to get the grievance remedied. It was proved by both the Birmingham and Sheffield Assay Masters that in spite of the report of the Parliamentary Committee, London was still passing goods from 2 1/2dwts. to 7dwts below standard, and recourse was had to the members for Yorkshire and Warwickshire to take steps for introducing a Bill to redress the grievances complained of. A Committee of the House was, I believe, appointed to enquire into the matter, but, so far as I can see, no legislation resulted. The funds of the Sheffield office were very low, and the guardians naturally shrank from incurring any great expense in the matter, especially as it chiefly concerned the Birmingham manufacturers. Still I have no doubt that the enquiry and agitation had a very considerable effect n bringing about the better state of affairs which now prevails. During the first eleven years of its existence the Sheffield Guardians struggled vainly to make ends meet; and at last determined that there was nothing for it but to go to Parliament for powers to charge a higher rate for marking small articles. In 1781 they had found it necessary to accept a loan of £100 from one of the guardians, Mr. John Winter, to enable them to pay arrears of salaries and other debts; and in July, 1784, the same good friend of the office joined Mr. Henry Tudor in advancing the money necessary for obtaining another Act. The Act referred to was duly passed, and in August, 1784, a meeting of the guardians was held to make arrangements for putting it into operation. This act, in addition to legalising an increased charge for marking silver, also contained some most important provisions relating to the marks which manufacturers of goods, plated with silver, might put upon their wares. The first Sheffield and Birmingham Act inflicts a penalty of £100 upon anyone striking any letter or letters upon things made of metal plated with silver ; and the makers of such goods were consequently deterred from striking their names upon them. The new Act empowers such manufacturers to strike their names, together with a mark, on their goods, without incurring this penalty, provided that the surname, or name, or firm were in plain and legible characters, and struck with one punch only ; the name to be accompanied by some device or figure to be approved by the guardians of the Sheffield Assay office, and registered in their book. A penalty of £100 is imposed on any manufacturer in Sheffield, or within 100 miles radius, who should strike a name or mark without previously registering it at this Assay office, or who should use any other manufacturer's mark. Under this Act the Birmingham manufacturers had to register their marks at Sheffield (Birmingham being only about 76 miles distant), and I cannot understand why they ever allowed it to become law. Certain it is that the enactment was felt to be a very great grievance, and for 40 years the manufacturers of that town groaned under it; whilst Sheffield men, too, must have found it a heavy infliction. The register of these marks is very interesting. Some of the impressions are 1 1/4 inch long, and must have been a disfigurement on any article. The difficulty of striking such an impression with one punch only, will be appreciated by manufacturers. Many attempts were made to evade the act, and the Sheffield Guardians drew some considerable sums from Birmingham in the shape of fines. I think it speaks well for the temper of the Birmingham Guardians, that, in spite of the irritation which this Act unquestionably created, a most cordial and friendly feeling has always existed between that office and our own. In April, 1824, the Birmingham Guardians went to Parliament for a new act, and in their bill had introduced a clause giving them powers to register Platers' Marks; but this was so strongly opposed by Sheffield, Mr. John Settle and Col. Thomas Leader taking an important part in the matter, that the clause was withdrawn, it being represented by the commissioners of the Board of Trade, that the Government intended to obtain an act for consolidating and regulating the provisions of existing acts, and that they would therein deal with the question of the marks to be used. I do not find that any such most desirable act was passed; but the platers seem to have considered themselves absolved from further observance of the Sheffield enactment, as no Birmingham mark is registered after that date, and only four Sheffield ones within the next 12 years, after which no plater's mark is entered in the register. I find that during the time the Act was in full operation 77 Birmingham, 1 London, and only 51 Sheffield Marks were registered, so that Birmingham had good cause to feel dissatisfied. I am inclined to think that manufacturers as a rule preferred selling their wares without any letters to denote the maker, rather than mark them with the prescribed punches; for although I have seen many examples of Old Sheffield Plate, I have not come across any articles bearing these objectionable impressions.
From the date of the passing of their second act the guardians of the Sheffield office gradually got free from their financial difficulties, and by the year 1793, they had not only paid off all their liabilities but had accumulated sufficient funds to justify their building an office, and accordingly they purchased from Mr. Edward Sheppard, for the sum of £70, some leasehold premises situate in "the Farr Gate, Sheffield," in the occupation of Matt. Osbourn. These " ancient buildings " were pulled down, and the substantial brick dwelling house and office, which we all remember so well, were erected on the site at a cost of about £900.
They were built by John Senior and Edward Drury, Carpenters, from plans prepared by Joseph Badger and Son, Joiners and Carpenters, of Brinsworth's Orchard, afterwards 1, Orchard street. The land was originally held on lease from the Duke of Norfolk, but the guardians ultimately bought the freehold for £75. The business of the office was removed to the new premises about June or September 1795. The financial position still continued to improve, and at the annual meeting, July, 1819, the Guardians felt themselves justified in reducing the charges for marking by 25 per cent.; and this happy state of affairs continued until 1832, when they unfortunately found it necessary to fall back upon their old scale. This must have been a great grief to them, and it is to be deplored by us even at the present day, for up to that time, it was the custom of the Guardians, after the annual meeting, to adjourn to dine at the Angel Inn, or Tontine; of the proceedings there I find no minutes; but the few bills which I have turned up are interesting and suggestive. Here is one from the " Tontine."
Sad to say, though fortune has again smiled upon the office, the Guardians have never regained their former jovial spirits; and a dinner which might perhaps have rivalled the Feast of the Cutlers, had it not been for the depression of 1832, is a thing of the past. The depression referred to appears to have lasted in a more or less marked degree until the year 1843; and this year is notable not only as the termination of "bad times," but also because in it, electro-plating, as now understood, was first commenced as a business in Sheffield. Three years previously Mr. John Wright, a Surgeon, of Birmingham, and a relative of my own, had discovered the value and use of Cyanide of Potassium for the purposes of electro-plating, and he sold his invention to Messrs. Elkington of that town, who in 1840, obtained a patent for the process. Mr. John Harrison, of Norfolk Works, Scotland street, Sheffield, being impressed with its merits, obtained from them a licence to use the process, and sent over to Birmingham Mr. George Walker (whom he engaged as an operative plater), to be instructed at Messrs. Elkmgton's Works. On the 1st July, 1843, Mr. Harrison advertised in the Sheffield Independent, that he had commenced the business of electro-plating, &c.,with Elkington's Patent. Mr. Walker only remained in Mr. Harrison's service about 18 months, and in 1845, commenced business as an Electro Plater on his own account; he being the founder of the present firm of " Walker and Hall." The early electro-platers no doubt had many difficulties and prejudices to overcome, and even so late as 1851, the Jury in their report on the Sheffield goods at the Exhibition of that year, " desire to guard against being considered as expressing an opinion on the merits of the application of the electro-process of silver plating to objects of domestic use. They desire only to commend the artistic application of this discovery, to which alone they think it adapted." But the process, as we now know, was destined to make its way and to supersede the celebrated "Sheffield Plate," which, for exactly 100 years, had held its own in every market.
It has sometimes been said that electro-plate has interfered with the silver trade of the town, but the books of the office show no sign of this. From about the year 1819 to 1843, the weight of silver sent for assay was on the decline, but from the latter date it has been gradually increasing, the weight marked last year being more than four times the amount marked in 1843 ; and this, notwithstanding the fact that since 1854, Sheffield manufacturers have been free to send their goods to London and have unfortunately availed themselves of that power to a pretty large extent. A Chart which I have prepared for this occasion showing the fluctuation in the weight of silver assayed annually at the Sheffield office is exceedingly interesting*, the effect of the American war for independence at the close of the 18th Century, and various other wars and financial panics being well marked. It is also noticeable that the imposition of duty on silver produced practically no effect on the volume of trade; an increase occasionally taking place the year after the duty was imposed.
During the 116 years which the office has been in existence eight persons have held the position of Assay Master, viz., Daniel Bradbury, 16 years; Geo. Dickinson, 18 years ; Samuel Hancock (formerly Acting Warden), 2 years; Matthew Sayles, of Sheffield, 24 1/4 years ; Lewis Chas. Sayles, 15 years, jointly with his father, and 21 years alone; John Watson (my father), 24 years; Wm, Hy. Watson (my brother), 10 years, jointly with my father, and 11 years jointly with myself. The Guardians have also had the services of five Law Clerks, viz., Gilbert Dixon, 11 years; Mark Skelton, of Braithwaite Hall, Wakefield, 41 1/2 years; John Watson, 24 years; Hy. Ed. Watson, 31 1/2 years ; and Wm. B. Esam, our present law clerk, 8 years. In the year 1784, the duty on silver plate, which was first introduced in 1720 (being then 6d. per oz.), and had been superseded in 1758 by a dealers' license of 40s. per annum, was re-imposed, and to the Assay offices was entrusted the responsibility of collecting it; a new mark (the sovereign's head), being introduced, to be struck upon the plate in addition to the several other marks directed by law. This mark for the first two years was in intaglio instead of in relief, and appeared like the matrix of a seal instead of its impression. Subsequently to 1785-6, it has been struck in relief like the other assay marks. Mr. Mark Skelton and his successors have held the combined offices of Law Clerk and Accomptant (or Receiver of Duties). The duty imposed on silver in 1784 was sixpence per ounce. This was doubled in the year 1797, making it Is. per ounce, and it is a curious fact that from the 13th July, 1797, to the 16th April 1798, the Sheffield office indicated the receipt of this doubled duty by striking the King's Head twice upon each article. After the latter date the King's Head was struck once only in accordance with the wish of the manufacturers and the practice at Goldsmiths' Hall. The duty paid by the manufacturer at the present time on unfinished wares is practically Is. 3d. per ounce.
Upon the complete list of Guardians, which I have, at considerable trouble, compiled from the Minute Book, I find 179 names, and it is only right that I should mention some of those who have taken the most active part in guiding the affairs of the office. First and foremost deservedly comes the name of the Earl of Effingham, who presided at the first Seven Annual Meetings of Guardians, and at intervals subsequently occupied the chair, evidently taking a very deep interest in the welfare of the office. His successor (Richard) was elected a Guardian in 1792, and was an almost constant attendant at the meetings. I find that he was present at 17 Annual Meetings in succession, and chairman at 15 of those meetings. His last attendance was in 1816, and the removal of his name from the list was a very great loss to the Guardians. The Lords Wharncliffe and Fitzwilliam have also assisted by their presence and advice on several occasions, though for over 50 years they have, I regret to say, been absent from the Board room. The Vicars of Sheffield (Rev. Jas. Wilkinson, Rev. Thos. Sutton, and Rev. Thos. Sale), all took a prominent part in the management of our affairs; but since the death of Dr. Sale the Guardians have laboured on " without benefit of clergy," our present esteemed Vicar evidently believing that we have been so well trained up by his predecessors, that we are not likely to depart from the straight path. Other names which I must mention are Samuel Tooker, of Moorgate, Benjamin Roebuck, John Turner, Simon Andrews Younge, Hy. Tudor, John Winter, Vincent Eyre, sen., John Reed, John Greaves, Chas. Proctor, Anthony Hufton, John Law, Hugh Parker, of Woodthorpe, Gamaliel Milner, of Attercliffe, Thomas Watson, Robt. Gainsford, Col. Thos. Leader, John Settle, John Watson, Josh. Dixon Skelton, of Middlewood, Hy. Wilkinson, Hewan Holt, Wm. Watson, of Shirecliffe, Hy. Thorpe Skelton, Wm. Fredk. Dixon, Saml. Bailey, John Rodgers, Saml. Roberts, junr., Jonthn. Buxton, E. Stirling Howard, and Thos. Jessop.
To be continued.
Trev.
Re: Early History of the Sheffield Assay Office
I mentioned some time ago that one of the marks to be struck upon plate is a letter of the alphabet. Each office has its peculiar alphabetical mark, indicating the year in which the plate was aasayed and stamped. The Sheffield Guardians, at the establishment of the office, adopted a plan of their own in regard to these letters, in which they differ from all other offices. The other offices, without exception, commence with the first letter (A.) and run through almost the complete alphabet regularly (certain letters omitted); but the first Sheffield date letter is an Old Text capital letter E, followed by F, and then N, and other letters irregularly. The second cycle, commencing July, 1799, also starts with a Roman capital E, followed by N, and other letters irregularly. I have often wondered why the Sheffield Guardians should have departed from the natural plan adopted by other offices; but whilst writing this paper, it has occurred to me that possibly the letter E was adopted out of compliment to the Earl of Effingham, to whom the office owed so much. Thomas, Earl of Effingham was in the chair when the first cycle was decided upon, and Richard, his brother and successor, occupied that position when the second cycle commenced. The third and succeeding cycles from 1824, commenced with the letter A, and continue regularly through the alphabet, and it should be noticed that the Effingham interest in the office appears to have ceased with the death of the Earl in 1816, the irregularities in arrangement of date letters ceasing almost simultaneously, which seems like a confirmation of the idea. The date letter for the present year, commencing in July last, is an Egyptian capital W. The present Hon. Wardens are Mr. Thomas Bradbury, and Mr. Austin Nicholson; the acting Wardens being Mr. John Newton, and Mr. Alfred Nicholson. The other Guardians representing the silversmiths of the town are Messrs. Eben. Hall, Chas. Favell, Hy. Isaac Dixon, E. T. Atkin, Herbert Hutton, Chas. Belk, and Wm. Chesterman. These gentlemen take a very active part in the management of the affairs of the office; and their high standing and well known business ability is a guarantee to the trade on the one hand that their interests will be well watched, and to the community on the other that it will be fully protected. Upon our list of Guardians there are also the names of several of our most able and influential townsmen, such as Sir Hy. E. Watson, Sir Hy. Stephenson, Messrs. M. J. Ellison, J. H. Barber and others.
During the 116 years which have elapsed since the office was established changes have taken place on all sides. The old balances, one of which I exhibit this evening, were superseded in 1861, by Oertling's splendid instrument; and at the same time the apparatus necessary for estimating the silver by the wet, or volumetric method was introduced; but this is seldom used, as we prefer to rely upon assays by cupellation. As regards the latter, it occurred to my father in 1866, that it would be a great improvement if gas could be substituted for charcoal for heating purposes. I, being at the time an apprentice away from the office, accidentally heard of this, and at once commenced experimenting; the result being that in March of the following year, I designed and erected a furnace which worked satisfactorily, and we have never since used the old charcoal furnace, though it has been carefully preserved, and is ready for work at any moment. I well remember the pleasure which the Guardians afforded my father when they gave me a gratuity of 20 guineas, in recognition of my services. From what I have said it will be seen that both the guardians and their officers are very anxious to avail themselves of the best and most approved methods. We have watched with interest the reported experiments at the Mint with the induction balance, by means of electricity, and also the trials by means of the spectroscope; but from these very delicate instruments we hardly anticipate any practical assistance. We willingly consider any suggestions which are made, and one such is, that we should revert to the "Touchstone;" but we cannot see our way to act upon it. The method is an exceedingly antiquated one, which has never, I believe, been in use at Sheffield and was long ago abandoned by the older offices as unreliable; this is especially so as regards silver, the only material with which we have here to deal. The letter which appeared in one of our local papers some time ago, pressing the restoration of this method, evidently referred to gold (the measure of exactness being quoted in carats), and consequently does not really concern the Sheffield silversmiths. The old, substantial brick office in Fargate, was in 1880, a victim to the town improvements. It was sold to the Sheffield Corporation for £4840; a sum which covered the cost of the present site and building. The well-known Lion (attributed to the chisel of Mozley, a man who worked for Ramsay, Sir Fras. Chantrey's master), which was formerly over the front door of the office in Fargate. is now inside the new building, over the entrance to the Marking-room. The new and convenient premises now occupied were designed by Messrs. Flockton and Gibbs, and built by Messrs. Chadwick and Co., of Rotherham. We commenced operations in them on Aug. 2nd, 1881. Commissions have on several occasions been appointed to make enquiries relating to the Assay offices, and it is a pleasure to find that their reports have without exception commended the working of those institutions at Sheffield and Birmingham. The silver passed at these two offices has always been up to the full legal requirements. The last time the efficiency of our office was reported upon was in October, 1887. On that occasion a deputation from the Board of Trade, consisting of Messrs. Courtnay Boyle, C.B., Roberts Austin (the Queen's Assay Master), and H. J. Chaney, visited Sheffield in connection with the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which required that a local distinguishing mark for Watch Cases of Foreign make should be adopted. The mark ultimately selected by the Guardians of the Sheffield Assay office is four arrows crossed upon an octagonal shield, the word "Foreign," and the date letter also appearing on the shield. We were anxious to have secured a broad arrow head as our mark ; but the Admiralty laid claim to it as the mark of the government stores, and we were obliged reluctantly to give way. The Board of Trade deputation took advantage of the opportunity to discuss fully with the Guardians the way in which the business of the office is conducted, and they afterwards saw for themselves the processes actually taking place. In their report, issued the following month, they say, "In the Assay offices, on the other hand, the practice is far from uniform, and, with regard to this point, we find that, whilst in London, Birmingham, and Sheffield, accurate balances and modern appliances have been adopted, in other offices, less accurate and even primitive methods of treatment have been retained. In certain offices the results are not systematically controlled by "check"assays, the furnaces closely resemble those described and figured by an early metallurgical writer, Biringuccio, in 1540; and the balances are hardly more delicate than those of which illustrations were given by Lazarus Ercker, in 1580, and by the author of 'a Touchstone for Gold and Silver Wares,' in 1675."
Several of the books now in use are the same as were opened on the establishment of the office; for instance, the "Minute Book," "Goods Broken Book," "Register of Makers' Marks," and "Bank Pass Book;" the latter commenced Oct. 2nd, 1805, when Messrs. Walker, Eyre, and Stanley were carrying on the banking business to which the Sheffield and Rotherham Bank succeeded. Glancing over these old books is exceedingly interesting; one sees there names of places and streets, showing the great changes which have taken place in our town and its surroundings. We see, too, the names of men and firms which once were great, but now are no longer known to us ; whilst we recognise names of silversmiths very early in the register still existing and familiar, such as Fenton, Creswick, Morton, Roberts, Hall, Wilson, Mappin, Rodgers, Harrison, Nowill, Wilkinson, Bradbury, Thompson, Eyre, Martin, Briggs, Atkin, Dixon, Hawksworth, Hutton, Walker, and Hutchinson.
The map of Sheffield, dated 1771, may be taken as the plan of the town at about the date of the establishment of our office, and a comparison of it with the maps for 1797, 1832, and the present date will be found instructive. By the kindness of Mr. Mitchell Withers, I am enabled to exhibit them tonight. Referring to the changes which have taken place in the topography of the town, I will only name a few which appear worthy of special attention. In 1773, " Far Field " is given as the address of one of the plate workers; but I cannot identify this with any particular locality. We find also "Holy street"; this, I suppose, must be the same as "Holly street," 1784, called "Blind lane," in 1771. There is "Pincin lane," which appears afterwards to have become "Pinson lane," " Pinston Croft lane," "Pinstone lane," and ultimately "Pinstone street." One of the most curious points arises in connection with a place called " Brinsworth Orchard," this name appears in our register frequently, about the date September, 1773; and yet on the map dated two years earlier there is no such place, but we find the land extending on both sides of Orchard street from Fargate to Church street called " Brelsforth orchards," and it seems as though the name must either be an error on the map, or have been changed within those two years. I think the latter most likely, as "Brelsforth" is a Sheffield name. The name "Brelsforth" never occurs in our books. We have the address "Towahead cross," this had been " Pinfold lane" in 1771, and in 1832 appears again as " Pinfold street." "Coal Pit lane," has now become Cambridge street. Some of the "Crofts" are now dignified with the title of "Street." "China square," I suppose, may perhaps mean "Cheney square," though it is curious that the word "China" should always be used in Gale and Martin's Directory of 1787, and never " Cheney." The latter appears on all the maps from 1771 forward, and Dr. Cheney was living when the directory was published. There is "Pinchcroft lane," probably " Pinston Croft lane," or Pinstone street, "Hull foot," perhaps for "Hill foot, "Penistone road, "Bailey Fields," evidently a large tract of land between Trippet lane and Broad lane, since cut up into Bailey lane and other streets. "Sykes square," in Pinstone street, "Pickle" in the Wicker, Grindlegate in Tenter street, "Backfields," in Division street, "Methodist Meeting Yard," "Ladies Walk," Sheffield Moor, now Porter street, and lastly "Pepper alley," which, it will be remembered, was a curved street running from Fargate, below the old Assay office into Norfolk street, passing the "Upper chapel." This alley disappeared during the town improvements. I may just call attention to the fact that in the 1771 map, the district south east of St. Paul's Church is marked out with "proposed roads," and within the next 26 years "Surrey street," Arundel street, and many others have there made their appearance.
In examining the Plate Book which was in use just a hundred years ago, a number of dried rose leaves were found. How long they had been there, no one can tell; but I think not less than 50 years, and probably much longer. A very pretty little romance connected with them, can easily be imagined, and I would suggest to any who are wearying of my story, that they should for a few moments rest their thoughts by picturing for themselves some of the possible, and impossible, or probable circumstances under which those leaves found a resting place in that musty old volume.
These " Plate Books" of the office indicate more or less the changes which have taken place in tastes and pursuits of fashion. In order to ascertain this, I have had analyses prepared for four periods of a year, each at intervals of 20 years; commencing with the opening year of the office. Three months of the year 1886 have also been analysed. In the year 1773-4, several hundred of buckles, and coat and braist buttons were assayed, reminding us of the days when our grandfathers wore wigs, knee breeches, and shoes; there were also whip caps, saddle nails, apple scrapers, scales and weights (they weighed their money in those days to make sure that it was right), and a large number of Punch ladles. It seems also to have been the fashion to make "tea kitchens" of silver. With the exception of the Punch ladles all these articles may be said to have gone out of fashion within the next 20 years. The ladles appear to have survived until 1793. Salts appear to have been in great favour in 1773, but to have declined subsequently, though they are now more freely made than ever. The quantity of bottle trays, stands, tops and cork mounts and bottle labels assayed between 1773 and 1833 points to the jovial proclivities of our ancestors during the period indicated, and probably until a somewhat later date. Coffee pots are found to have been frequently made of silver, in 1773; but teapots very seldom appear in the analyses until twenty years later. Knife blades and handles were made in 1773, and were evidently rising in favour until 1813, from which point they have declined; possibly electro-plate has had something to do with this. Silver candlesticks have fluctuated, reaching a maximum in 1793, and a minimum in 1832, indicating, I suppose, the competition of gas; but they are now gaining ground once more. Muffineers first appear in the 1793 column, and after almost dying away, are now again made in large quantities. We also find in that period spectacle frames, reminding us of the heavy arrangements which our forefathers wore upon their noses. Egg cups and stands, scissor bows and cases, also appear under this date. In 1813 there seems to have been a strong demand for boxes, which has since almost ceased. We also see then for the first time cayenne spoons (spelt " Kyan "), ice pails, and watch boxes; whilst inkstands and snuffers now reached their highest points; cans and forks first appear in 1832-3, but the demand for the latter has since fallen off. The last period of 53 years is remarkable for the great number of luxuries introduced. Ashes trays, Claret jugs, cheese scoops, spoons for special purposes (ice, coffee, &c), menu holders, cigar cases, &c.; Napkin rings, sugar sifters, trowels, &c, &c, and an immense quantity of ferrules and caps for ornamenting handles, &c.
Thoroughout this paper I have carefully avoided going into the questions of "retention or abolition of Duty, or Hall Marking, or the legalising of a multiplicity of standards"; as it is better that no opinion on these matters should be expressed by an official; but I may just say for what it may be worth, that my experience has been that if silver which is intended to be made up into goods not to be hall-marked, accidentally comes to the office, it always proves considerably below standard, and is condemned, from which it may be inferred that with a voluntary system English silver, instead of being as now, with but few exceptions, of recognised high quality, would soon become of a very mixed description. I regret that in recent years nothing of an amusing nature has turned-up to enliven my narrative, beyond the pictures, suggested by a correspondent in the press, of the Assay Master sitting in the midst of 100 teapots, waving aloft in triumph a bit of " joint wire " which he has found, and armed with a large hammer thoroughly enjoying himself by dealing destruction around. When I tell you that "joint wire" is not required to be assayed, and that our experience of the past 10 years has been that only one ounce in 976 (or say 1000) is broken-up, and that only about 40 teapots pass through the office in the course of a month, you will, I am sure, pity the lot of those whose imagined pleasures come so seldom. In the discharge of their duties the guardians have of course been obliged occasionally, to put the law in operation against offenders, and they have not shrunk from their responsibilities in that respect; but these cases have, I am glad to say, been remarkably few, and I will not trouble you with particulars. The offenders have paid their penalties, and I will not be so cruel as to add the further punishment of the pillory. I think I have shown that the officers of the company have from its incorporation faithfully and zealously discharged their duties as the " Guardians of the Standard of Wrought Plate in the Town of Sheffield," for which the community is deeply indebted to them, and not only so, but they can (associated with Birmingham) also claim to have raised the quality of the silver standard throughout the entire country, by insisting upon the legal requirements being complied with, a fact of which the guardians of the present day are probably unaware, but of which they may nevertheless be justly proud.
In closing this paper, it will, perhaps, be expected that I should refer to the piracy of the London Hall Mark, the account of which occupied so prominent a position last week in one of our local papers; but all that I can say is, that I am astonished so much can be made of so little. The fact that a Hall Mark can be copied by a clever knave no one will doubt; neither will he dispute that bank notes and coin can be forged ; but no one on that account contends that bank notes and coin must be abolished; or that there is any reason for public confidence in them to be shaken. It is true, that a number of persons were deceived by the forged Hall Marks, owing to their not having examined them with sufficient knowledge and care; but, when the articles were submitted to me I at once declared the marks to be forgeries, giving the authorities my reasons for the opinion I expressed. I regret now that I did give reasons, since they have very unwisely, in my judgment, been made public, and I fear the ends of justice may thus be defeated rather than helped. The one thing needed is that the risk run by the forger shall be made so great that "the game shall not be worth the candle." It may be that the recent more frequent attempts at forgery are simply to show us, that in these days when to become a criminal is to become an object of compassion, and the punishment is made so slight by the ticket-of-leave system, the risk run is laughed at, and has ceased to be a deterrent.
The histories of the Assay office, and of the Silver Trade are so closely interwoven, that they could not well be separated, and I have therefore had to deal with a very wide subject, which must be my apology for having inflicted upon you a long, but I hope not too wearisome paper.
The End.
Trev.
During the 116 years which have elapsed since the office was established changes have taken place on all sides. The old balances, one of which I exhibit this evening, were superseded in 1861, by Oertling's splendid instrument; and at the same time the apparatus necessary for estimating the silver by the wet, or volumetric method was introduced; but this is seldom used, as we prefer to rely upon assays by cupellation. As regards the latter, it occurred to my father in 1866, that it would be a great improvement if gas could be substituted for charcoal for heating purposes. I, being at the time an apprentice away from the office, accidentally heard of this, and at once commenced experimenting; the result being that in March of the following year, I designed and erected a furnace which worked satisfactorily, and we have never since used the old charcoal furnace, though it has been carefully preserved, and is ready for work at any moment. I well remember the pleasure which the Guardians afforded my father when they gave me a gratuity of 20 guineas, in recognition of my services. From what I have said it will be seen that both the guardians and their officers are very anxious to avail themselves of the best and most approved methods. We have watched with interest the reported experiments at the Mint with the induction balance, by means of electricity, and also the trials by means of the spectroscope; but from these very delicate instruments we hardly anticipate any practical assistance. We willingly consider any suggestions which are made, and one such is, that we should revert to the "Touchstone;" but we cannot see our way to act upon it. The method is an exceedingly antiquated one, which has never, I believe, been in use at Sheffield and was long ago abandoned by the older offices as unreliable; this is especially so as regards silver, the only material with which we have here to deal. The letter which appeared in one of our local papers some time ago, pressing the restoration of this method, evidently referred to gold (the measure of exactness being quoted in carats), and consequently does not really concern the Sheffield silversmiths. The old, substantial brick office in Fargate, was in 1880, a victim to the town improvements. It was sold to the Sheffield Corporation for £4840; a sum which covered the cost of the present site and building. The well-known Lion (attributed to the chisel of Mozley, a man who worked for Ramsay, Sir Fras. Chantrey's master), which was formerly over the front door of the office in Fargate. is now inside the new building, over the entrance to the Marking-room. The new and convenient premises now occupied were designed by Messrs. Flockton and Gibbs, and built by Messrs. Chadwick and Co., of Rotherham. We commenced operations in them on Aug. 2nd, 1881. Commissions have on several occasions been appointed to make enquiries relating to the Assay offices, and it is a pleasure to find that their reports have without exception commended the working of those institutions at Sheffield and Birmingham. The silver passed at these two offices has always been up to the full legal requirements. The last time the efficiency of our office was reported upon was in October, 1887. On that occasion a deputation from the Board of Trade, consisting of Messrs. Courtnay Boyle, C.B., Roberts Austin (the Queen's Assay Master), and H. J. Chaney, visited Sheffield in connection with the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which required that a local distinguishing mark for Watch Cases of Foreign make should be adopted. The mark ultimately selected by the Guardians of the Sheffield Assay office is four arrows crossed upon an octagonal shield, the word "Foreign," and the date letter also appearing on the shield. We were anxious to have secured a broad arrow head as our mark ; but the Admiralty laid claim to it as the mark of the government stores, and we were obliged reluctantly to give way. The Board of Trade deputation took advantage of the opportunity to discuss fully with the Guardians the way in which the business of the office is conducted, and they afterwards saw for themselves the processes actually taking place. In their report, issued the following month, they say, "In the Assay offices, on the other hand, the practice is far from uniform, and, with regard to this point, we find that, whilst in London, Birmingham, and Sheffield, accurate balances and modern appliances have been adopted, in other offices, less accurate and even primitive methods of treatment have been retained. In certain offices the results are not systematically controlled by "check"assays, the furnaces closely resemble those described and figured by an early metallurgical writer, Biringuccio, in 1540; and the balances are hardly more delicate than those of which illustrations were given by Lazarus Ercker, in 1580, and by the author of 'a Touchstone for Gold and Silver Wares,' in 1675."
Several of the books now in use are the same as were opened on the establishment of the office; for instance, the "Minute Book," "Goods Broken Book," "Register of Makers' Marks," and "Bank Pass Book;" the latter commenced Oct. 2nd, 1805, when Messrs. Walker, Eyre, and Stanley were carrying on the banking business to which the Sheffield and Rotherham Bank succeeded. Glancing over these old books is exceedingly interesting; one sees there names of places and streets, showing the great changes which have taken place in our town and its surroundings. We see, too, the names of men and firms which once were great, but now are no longer known to us ; whilst we recognise names of silversmiths very early in the register still existing and familiar, such as Fenton, Creswick, Morton, Roberts, Hall, Wilson, Mappin, Rodgers, Harrison, Nowill, Wilkinson, Bradbury, Thompson, Eyre, Martin, Briggs, Atkin, Dixon, Hawksworth, Hutton, Walker, and Hutchinson.
The map of Sheffield, dated 1771, may be taken as the plan of the town at about the date of the establishment of our office, and a comparison of it with the maps for 1797, 1832, and the present date will be found instructive. By the kindness of Mr. Mitchell Withers, I am enabled to exhibit them tonight. Referring to the changes which have taken place in the topography of the town, I will only name a few which appear worthy of special attention. In 1773, " Far Field " is given as the address of one of the plate workers; but I cannot identify this with any particular locality. We find also "Holy street"; this, I suppose, must be the same as "Holly street," 1784, called "Blind lane," in 1771. There is "Pincin lane," which appears afterwards to have become "Pinson lane," " Pinston Croft lane," "Pinstone lane," and ultimately "Pinstone street." One of the most curious points arises in connection with a place called " Brinsworth Orchard," this name appears in our register frequently, about the date September, 1773; and yet on the map dated two years earlier there is no such place, but we find the land extending on both sides of Orchard street from Fargate to Church street called " Brelsforth orchards," and it seems as though the name must either be an error on the map, or have been changed within those two years. I think the latter most likely, as "Brelsforth" is a Sheffield name. The name "Brelsforth" never occurs in our books. We have the address "Towahead cross," this had been " Pinfold lane" in 1771, and in 1832 appears again as " Pinfold street." "Coal Pit lane," has now become Cambridge street. Some of the "Crofts" are now dignified with the title of "Street." "China square," I suppose, may perhaps mean "Cheney square," though it is curious that the word "China" should always be used in Gale and Martin's Directory of 1787, and never " Cheney." The latter appears on all the maps from 1771 forward, and Dr. Cheney was living when the directory was published. There is "Pinchcroft lane," probably " Pinston Croft lane," or Pinstone street, "Hull foot," perhaps for "Hill foot, "Penistone road, "Bailey Fields," evidently a large tract of land between Trippet lane and Broad lane, since cut up into Bailey lane and other streets. "Sykes square," in Pinstone street, "Pickle" in the Wicker, Grindlegate in Tenter street, "Backfields," in Division street, "Methodist Meeting Yard," "Ladies Walk," Sheffield Moor, now Porter street, and lastly "Pepper alley," which, it will be remembered, was a curved street running from Fargate, below the old Assay office into Norfolk street, passing the "Upper chapel." This alley disappeared during the town improvements. I may just call attention to the fact that in the 1771 map, the district south east of St. Paul's Church is marked out with "proposed roads," and within the next 26 years "Surrey street," Arundel street, and many others have there made their appearance.
In examining the Plate Book which was in use just a hundred years ago, a number of dried rose leaves were found. How long they had been there, no one can tell; but I think not less than 50 years, and probably much longer. A very pretty little romance connected with them, can easily be imagined, and I would suggest to any who are wearying of my story, that they should for a few moments rest their thoughts by picturing for themselves some of the possible, and impossible, or probable circumstances under which those leaves found a resting place in that musty old volume.
These " Plate Books" of the office indicate more or less the changes which have taken place in tastes and pursuits of fashion. In order to ascertain this, I have had analyses prepared for four periods of a year, each at intervals of 20 years; commencing with the opening year of the office. Three months of the year 1886 have also been analysed. In the year 1773-4, several hundred of buckles, and coat and braist buttons were assayed, reminding us of the days when our grandfathers wore wigs, knee breeches, and shoes; there were also whip caps, saddle nails, apple scrapers, scales and weights (they weighed their money in those days to make sure that it was right), and a large number of Punch ladles. It seems also to have been the fashion to make "tea kitchens" of silver. With the exception of the Punch ladles all these articles may be said to have gone out of fashion within the next 20 years. The ladles appear to have survived until 1793. Salts appear to have been in great favour in 1773, but to have declined subsequently, though they are now more freely made than ever. The quantity of bottle trays, stands, tops and cork mounts and bottle labels assayed between 1773 and 1833 points to the jovial proclivities of our ancestors during the period indicated, and probably until a somewhat later date. Coffee pots are found to have been frequently made of silver, in 1773; but teapots very seldom appear in the analyses until twenty years later. Knife blades and handles were made in 1773, and were evidently rising in favour until 1813, from which point they have declined; possibly electro-plate has had something to do with this. Silver candlesticks have fluctuated, reaching a maximum in 1793, and a minimum in 1832, indicating, I suppose, the competition of gas; but they are now gaining ground once more. Muffineers first appear in the 1793 column, and after almost dying away, are now again made in large quantities. We also find in that period spectacle frames, reminding us of the heavy arrangements which our forefathers wore upon their noses. Egg cups and stands, scissor bows and cases, also appear under this date. In 1813 there seems to have been a strong demand for boxes, which has since almost ceased. We also see then for the first time cayenne spoons (spelt " Kyan "), ice pails, and watch boxes; whilst inkstands and snuffers now reached their highest points; cans and forks first appear in 1832-3, but the demand for the latter has since fallen off. The last period of 53 years is remarkable for the great number of luxuries introduced. Ashes trays, Claret jugs, cheese scoops, spoons for special purposes (ice, coffee, &c), menu holders, cigar cases, &c.; Napkin rings, sugar sifters, trowels, &c, &c, and an immense quantity of ferrules and caps for ornamenting handles, &c.
Thoroughout this paper I have carefully avoided going into the questions of "retention or abolition of Duty, or Hall Marking, or the legalising of a multiplicity of standards"; as it is better that no opinion on these matters should be expressed by an official; but I may just say for what it may be worth, that my experience has been that if silver which is intended to be made up into goods not to be hall-marked, accidentally comes to the office, it always proves considerably below standard, and is condemned, from which it may be inferred that with a voluntary system English silver, instead of being as now, with but few exceptions, of recognised high quality, would soon become of a very mixed description. I regret that in recent years nothing of an amusing nature has turned-up to enliven my narrative, beyond the pictures, suggested by a correspondent in the press, of the Assay Master sitting in the midst of 100 teapots, waving aloft in triumph a bit of " joint wire " which he has found, and armed with a large hammer thoroughly enjoying himself by dealing destruction around. When I tell you that "joint wire" is not required to be assayed, and that our experience of the past 10 years has been that only one ounce in 976 (or say 1000) is broken-up, and that only about 40 teapots pass through the office in the course of a month, you will, I am sure, pity the lot of those whose imagined pleasures come so seldom. In the discharge of their duties the guardians have of course been obliged occasionally, to put the law in operation against offenders, and they have not shrunk from their responsibilities in that respect; but these cases have, I am glad to say, been remarkably few, and I will not trouble you with particulars. The offenders have paid their penalties, and I will not be so cruel as to add the further punishment of the pillory. I think I have shown that the officers of the company have from its incorporation faithfully and zealously discharged their duties as the " Guardians of the Standard of Wrought Plate in the Town of Sheffield," for which the community is deeply indebted to them, and not only so, but they can (associated with Birmingham) also claim to have raised the quality of the silver standard throughout the entire country, by insisting upon the legal requirements being complied with, a fact of which the guardians of the present day are probably unaware, but of which they may nevertheless be justly proud.
In closing this paper, it will, perhaps, be expected that I should refer to the piracy of the London Hall Mark, the account of which occupied so prominent a position last week in one of our local papers; but all that I can say is, that I am astonished so much can be made of so little. The fact that a Hall Mark can be copied by a clever knave no one will doubt; neither will he dispute that bank notes and coin can be forged ; but no one on that account contends that bank notes and coin must be abolished; or that there is any reason for public confidence in them to be shaken. It is true, that a number of persons were deceived by the forged Hall Marks, owing to their not having examined them with sufficient knowledge and care; but, when the articles were submitted to me I at once declared the marks to be forgeries, giving the authorities my reasons for the opinion I expressed. I regret now that I did give reasons, since they have very unwisely, in my judgment, been made public, and I fear the ends of justice may thus be defeated rather than helped. The one thing needed is that the risk run by the forger shall be made so great that "the game shall not be worth the candle." It may be that the recent more frequent attempts at forgery are simply to show us, that in these days when to become a criminal is to become an object of compassion, and the punishment is made so slight by the ticket-of-leave system, the risk run is laughed at, and has ceased to be a deterrent.
The histories of the Assay office, and of the Silver Trade are so closely interwoven, that they could not well be separated, and I have therefore had to deal with a very wide subject, which must be my apology for having inflicted upon you a long, but I hope not too wearisome paper.
The End.
Trev.
Re: Early History of the Sheffield Assay Office
A BIOGARAPHY OF ARNOLD THOMAS WATSON
The 1841 UK Census shows John born circa 1801 and Matilda Watson born c1813 resident at Woodside, Brightside Bierlow Sheffield. He was a silver plater.
Arnold Thomas Watson’s birth was registered in the Ecclesall Bierlow, Sheffield register in the second quarter of 1846.
The 1851 UK Census shows Arnold T Watson aged 4 years the son of John aged 50 years and Matilda aged 38 years living at 10 Broomhall Place, Ecclesall Bierlow. John had become a stock and share broker.
By 1861 the family was living at Broomhall Road, Ecclesall Bierlow. John Watson had become assay master as well as a stocks and shares broker. Another son William aged 21 years was also resident; he was an assay office clerk.
Arnold Thomas aged 24 years was still with his parents at Broomhall Road, Ecclesall Bierlow in 1871 where the Census records both he and his father as stockbrokers and accountants. They lived next door to William Sissons a retired silver plate manufacturer who was the father of William and George Sissons. A partnership in that name registered a mark at the Sheffield Assay Office in 1890.
Arnold Thomas Watson married Amy Mills in Altrincham, Cheshire in the second quarter of 1876.
His father John (Maude) Watson died on 9th August 1878. The National Probate Calendar Index of Wills shows Probate, in which he is described as a stock and share broker and assay master, was granted at Wakefield. The value of his estate was £24001-£25000.
Arnold Thomas was living at 3 Fulwood Road, Endcliffe Edge, Ecclesall Bierlow by 1881 where the Census records him as a chartered accountant, member of (a) stock exchange, and assay master of Sheffield. His wife Amy was not resident with him on Census day. 3 servants were resident.
In 1881 Amy (recorded as Annie) Watson aged 31 years was living at Oldfield, Dunham Massey Cheshire the daughter of John Mills aged 59 years, a bank manager, and his wife Isabella aged 52 years along with a son Vincent (apparently Mills) aged 3 years and a grandson Arnold Watson aged 1 year. Both Vincent and Arnold were born in Sheffield and appear to be the sons of Arnold Thomas and Amy Mills Watson (see the following).
Arnold Thomas had moved to “Southwold” Tapton Crescent Road, Ecclesall Bierlow by 1891 where the Census records him as a sharebroker, accountant and assay master living with son Arnold P aged 11 years. He employed 3 servants. His wife was again not resident. His next door neighbour was Henry Gallimore an electroplate manufacturer who may have been a member of William Gallimore & Co or Sons.
Amy Watson aged 41 years appears on the 1891 Census again resident at Oldfield, Bradgate Road, Dunham Massey, Altrincham, Cheshire as the daughter of the retired bank manager John Mills. Vincent J Watson is recorded on the 1891 Census aged 13 years born in Sheffield as a boarder at St Anselm’s Preparatory School, Bakewell Derbyshire.
Still at Tapton Crescent Road in 1901 Arnold Thomas is recorded as a stockbroker and chartered accountant. His wife Amy is resident along with son Vincent now aged 23 years also a stockbroker and chartered accountant. There were 3 servants and a sick nurse resident. Arnold P Watson has not been traced on this Census.
In 1911 Arnold Thomas was still at the same address as a chartered accountant and sharebroker and resident with his wife Amy. He employed 3 servants.
Arnold Thomas Watson died on 19th March 1924. His last address was 76 Clarkehouse Road, Sheffield. The death was registered in Ecclesall Bierlow. Probate was granted on 23rd September 1924 at the London registry inter alia, to his widow Amy, his son Vincent John recorded as a chartered accountant and his son Arnold Petrie recorded as a gentleman. The value of the estate was £72437/11s/10d.
The 1841 UK Census shows John born circa 1801 and Matilda Watson born c1813 resident at Woodside, Brightside Bierlow Sheffield. He was a silver plater.
Arnold Thomas Watson’s birth was registered in the Ecclesall Bierlow, Sheffield register in the second quarter of 1846.
The 1851 UK Census shows Arnold T Watson aged 4 years the son of John aged 50 years and Matilda aged 38 years living at 10 Broomhall Place, Ecclesall Bierlow. John had become a stock and share broker.
By 1861 the family was living at Broomhall Road, Ecclesall Bierlow. John Watson had become assay master as well as a stocks and shares broker. Another son William aged 21 years was also resident; he was an assay office clerk.
Arnold Thomas aged 24 years was still with his parents at Broomhall Road, Ecclesall Bierlow in 1871 where the Census records both he and his father as stockbrokers and accountants. They lived next door to William Sissons a retired silver plate manufacturer who was the father of William and George Sissons. A partnership in that name registered a mark at the Sheffield Assay Office in 1890.
Arnold Thomas Watson married Amy Mills in Altrincham, Cheshire in the second quarter of 1876.
His father John (Maude) Watson died on 9th August 1878. The National Probate Calendar Index of Wills shows Probate, in which he is described as a stock and share broker and assay master, was granted at Wakefield. The value of his estate was £24001-£25000.
Arnold Thomas was living at 3 Fulwood Road, Endcliffe Edge, Ecclesall Bierlow by 1881 where the Census records him as a chartered accountant, member of (a) stock exchange, and assay master of Sheffield. His wife Amy was not resident with him on Census day. 3 servants were resident.
In 1881 Amy (recorded as Annie) Watson aged 31 years was living at Oldfield, Dunham Massey Cheshire the daughter of John Mills aged 59 years, a bank manager, and his wife Isabella aged 52 years along with a son Vincent (apparently Mills) aged 3 years and a grandson Arnold Watson aged 1 year. Both Vincent and Arnold were born in Sheffield and appear to be the sons of Arnold Thomas and Amy Mills Watson (see the following).
Arnold Thomas had moved to “Southwold” Tapton Crescent Road, Ecclesall Bierlow by 1891 where the Census records him as a sharebroker, accountant and assay master living with son Arnold P aged 11 years. He employed 3 servants. His wife was again not resident. His next door neighbour was Henry Gallimore an electroplate manufacturer who may have been a member of William Gallimore & Co or Sons.
Amy Watson aged 41 years appears on the 1891 Census again resident at Oldfield, Bradgate Road, Dunham Massey, Altrincham, Cheshire as the daughter of the retired bank manager John Mills. Vincent J Watson is recorded on the 1891 Census aged 13 years born in Sheffield as a boarder at St Anselm’s Preparatory School, Bakewell Derbyshire.
Still at Tapton Crescent Road in 1901 Arnold Thomas is recorded as a stockbroker and chartered accountant. His wife Amy is resident along with son Vincent now aged 23 years also a stockbroker and chartered accountant. There were 3 servants and a sick nurse resident. Arnold P Watson has not been traced on this Census.
In 1911 Arnold Thomas was still at the same address as a chartered accountant and sharebroker and resident with his wife Amy. He employed 3 servants.
Arnold Thomas Watson died on 19th March 1924. His last address was 76 Clarkehouse Road, Sheffield. The death was registered in Ecclesall Bierlow. Probate was granted on 23rd September 1924 at the London registry inter alia, to his widow Amy, his son Vincent John recorded as a chartered accountant and his son Arnold Petrie recorded as a gentleman. The value of the estate was £72437/11s/10d.
Re: Early History of the Sheffield Assay Office
The Sheffield Assay Office is moving in the new year to smaller premises now being constructed in Portobello Street. Their present offices in Leopold Street were recently sold by auction to the Alliance Building Society.
Source: Watchmaker, Jeweller & Silversmith - September 1958
Trev.
Source: Watchmaker, Jeweller & Silversmith - September 1958
Trev.
Return to “Contributors' Notes”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests