134 Mr. Hatchett's Experiments on the various Alloy s, 
However respectable the names of some of the foregoing 
authors may be, there is much reason to believe, that the specific 
gravity of fine gold, in the two first instances, has been too 
highly estimated ; and, as to standard gold, there cannot be any 
doubt but that some error must have been the cause which in- 
duced Caswell, Ward, Cotes, and Musschenbroek, to rate 
it at 18,888; and Harris to state the specific gravity of the 
Jacobus at 18,375. 
What this error was, cannot now be determined; but, if the 
operations were accurately performed, and, considering the emi- 
nence of the persons concerned, this can scarcely be doubted, 
we must conclude that too small a proportion of alloy was pre- 
sent in both cases ; for this appears to be very probable, from 
the general result of the whole of the preceding experiments.* 
Some such cause of error must have therefore prevailed, in the 
two first cases of standard gold contained in the foregoing 
Table ; and it is absolutely necessary that this should be strongly 
pointed out, lest any one should fall into a mistaken notion, 
which has but too commonly been received in this country, and 
which has injuriously and unjustly been believed on the Conti- 
nent, to the detriment of the British Exchange. The erroneous 
idea to which I allude is, the belief that the standard gold of the 
present reign is inferior to those which have preceded it ; the 
real fact is, however, precisely the reverse, as the following 
extract, from the Report of Messrs. Garbetts to the Lords of 
the Treasury, in 1782, will sufficiently prove. 
* It is very probable, that the alloy was as much too abundant, in many similar 
pieces of the same coinage, as it was deficient in those here mentioned ; for, it is certain, 
that the gold coins of James IT. and of Charles II. were, in the aggregate, much 
inferior to the present standard, as the annexed extract from Messrs. Garbetts’ 
Report sufficiently evinces. 
