Chapter VII: Part 7

Text size

4495748·2 : 778·7 :: 1000 : 0·173208 = 3_s._ 5½_d._
4495748 : 36·64 :: 1000 : 1·955_d._
The Wages paid for Melting 2,110,962 were
£36·64 = 1·955_d._ on each 1,000 Sovereigns coined.
= 0·001955 on each Sovereign coined.
1,000 Sovereigns cost 3_s._ 5½_d._ to coin
= 0·04156992 of a Penny for each Coin.

_To the_ MASTER OF THE MINT. GEORGE F. ANSELL, _January 20th, 1858_.

Reference to the table at page 84 will demonstrate the fact that, by March, 1857, the average loss had fallen to £233·84, while in June of the same year it had been reduced to £57·86, finally reaching so low as £18·45 in December, 1857, the sums being in every way strictly comparable with all those of that table, because the value of the sweep is not taken into account in any case. As is usual in all discoveries, the merit was soon found to be worth claiming, but that the credit was due to me the Master himself admitted; and it is a fact that I was the only new officer, while all those who had been previously employed were still retained; and I feel that the Master confirmed his opinion when, in consequence of the reforms I had effected, he obliged all officers to follow such directions as I gave. In all cases where time would permit, I made it a rule to obtain the Master’s sanction before giving orders; but in cases of necessity I was empowered to act independently, and did so act, he confirming such orders as I gave. It should also be mentioned that so soon as I entered the Mint, Mr. Graham gave me positive instructions not to allow either of the then chief officers to interfere with the coining department. Nor would he permit a gold coinage to be conducted in my continued absence. If, however, the business of the Mint called me away, he, to induce the belief that I was in town and on the spot, would pay my expenses to and from London from his own pocket, and this he did on several occasions, because he found that “in my absence unnecessary loss re-appeared.” The opposition offered to the coining of bronze in the Royal Mint was so great, that the Master wished me to go to the mint of Messrs. Heaton and Sons at Birmingham, and there make such experiments as were necessary to confirm the opinions I had formed on that subject. This firm, with a generosity ever their own, permitted me to make, during a considerable period, and free of charge, such experiments for the Mint as I deemed necessary, rendering every possible assistance; but my investigations and agreeable visit were brought suddenly to a close by the following note from the Master:—

“ROYAL MINT, _9th January, 1861_.

“MY DEAR SIR.

“Owing to renewed pressure for gold coin, we find it necessary to
begin rolling on Friday next. I am sorry to shorten your holiday,
but your presence is very desirable as soon as gold enters the
rolling room, and will relieve me of much anxiety.

“The pyx pence received from Mr. Gausby to-day appear to be of fair
quality. We should like to have a ton or two.
“Very truly yours,
“THO. GRAHAM.
“G. F. ANSELL, ESQUIRE,
“At Messrs. Heaton & Sons, Birmingham.”

To demonstrate, then, the correctness of the theorem I had proposed, it will be necessary to refer once more to the table on page 90, where it will be seen that these results exhibit themselves in the financial year April to March, 1857-58, when the loss in each million coined was £14 3_s._, and the sweep recovered in that year was sold at the rate of £39 7_s._ 10½_d._ for each million coined. If, therefore, the proportionate loss be deducted from the value of sweep sold, we have for the first[56] time in the experience of coiners a GAIN BY COINING to the extent of £25 4_s._ 10½_d._ on each million coined, thus approaching to the calculated gain of £59 4_s._, while in the next financial year it will be observed that there was a loss of £22 11_s._ 0½_d._, with a value of sweep recovered £73 4_s._ 0½_d._, giving an absolute gain of £50 13_s._,[56] practically the result calculated upon. To comprehend, then, the reason, why in the following years a loss is again permitted, it will be necessary to enter into matters of the inner life of the Mint. By the year 1859 the hatred excited against me in consequence of these exposures had culminated to the extreme. The Master, then desirous of finding a permanent position for his brother,[57] listened to and encouraged any stories against myself, notwithstanding the facts above related, and instead of consulting me and sending necessary orders through me, as usual, sent written orders openly by messengers, whose instructions were to read them to each officer. These styled by himself “circulating orders,” were intended to disgust all the officers who had assisted in the reforms, and it was apparently determined by these and other like means to bring back the management of the Mint into the former chaos of irregularities, that he might make his brother’s appointment appear necessary.

[Footnote 56: See page 178.]

[Footnote 57: Mr. John Graham, who had been engaged “gratuitously” for many months “to get his hand in,” was appointed, on the 23rd April, 1861, to an extra clerkship, at £20 a month, as Inspector of Bronze Coins,—“as a warming-pan.”]

The disrespect thus exhibited to myself, and to the officers generally, had to a certain extent its designed effect, for in 1859-60 the loss rose to £76 7_s._ 7_d._, the sweep selling for £66 12_s._ 5_d._, showing an absolute loss of £9 15_s._ 2_d._ It will now be necessary to refer to a statement of losses and gains upon each _quarter_, because the accounts were not officially balanced, the next statement being for the years April, 1860, to March, 1862,[58] but the quarterly account below[59] shows that the loss rose to 65·444 ounces, progressing rapidly in June, 1861, to 105·823 ounces, while in March, 1862, it had reached the ugly figure of 157·745 ounces. Before, however, this vast loss had been reached, the officers consulted together with a view to devise a means of arresting the downward course. About this time a piece of gold was discovered secreted in the drag room tunnel. I felt that this was a fact on which I could legitimately appeal to the Master against his new system, and this I did on the 31st December, 1861, when I represented to him that the reappearance of the losses was wholly due to his withdrawal of support from his officers, and that if he would not take the steps which were necessary, he alone must bear the blame, for I had now represented the truth to him. He asked my advice; so I told him boldly that he must come down officially to the works, as of old, and show himself a supporter of honest men. After much persuasion he assented to this advice, and came down. From that day the losses ceased, yet the effects, so far as the accounts are concerned, are exhibited till the quarter ending March, 1862; but the following quarter, ending June, 1862, exhibits a natural gain of 17·942 ounces. This table is of value, as showing the alternations of the apparent gain or loss; for in some quarters the loss appears to be greater than in others, arising from the fact that the bullion picked from the sweep is in some cases included; but this is always included in the return of the financial year.

[Footnote 58: See page 90.]

[Footnote 59: See page 95.]

STATEMENT SHOWING THE LOSSES AND GAINS UPON EACH QUARTER, FROM
JUNE, 1856, TO SEPTEMBER, 1868.

+------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| | GOLD. | SILVER. |
|Quarter ending:— +------------+----------+-----------+---------+
| | Loss. | Gain. | Loss. | Gain. |
+------------------+------------+----------+-----------+---------+
| | Ounces. | Ounces. | Ounces. | Ounces. |
|June 30th, 1856 | 417·070 | | | |
|Dec. 31st, ” | 147·325 | — | 268·460 | |
| | — | — | 9·550 | |
|March 31st, 1857 | 17·220 | — | 690·314 | |
|June 30th, ” | — | — | 94·026 | |
|Sept. 30th. ” | — | — | 315·903 | |
|Dec. 31st, ” | 21·316 | | | |
|March 30th, 1858 | — | 4·673 | 500·335 | |
|Sept. 30th, ” | — | — | 315·114 | |
|Dec. 31st, ” | — | — | 211·250 | |
|March 31st, 1859 | 16·603 | — | 259·082 | |
|June 30th, ” | 9·417 | — | 185·358 | |
|Sept. 30th, ” | — | — | 240·890 | |
|Dec. 31st, ” | — | — | 403·593 | |
|March 31st, 1860 | 65·444[60]| — | 69·096 | |
|Sept. 30th, ” | — | — | 427·238 | |
|June 30th, 1861 | 105·823[61]| | | |
|Dec. 31st, ” | — | — | 606·765 | |
|March 31st, 1862 | 157·745[62]| — | — | 2·501 |
|June 30th, ” | — |[63]17·942| 170·965 | |
|August 31st, ” | 5·671 | | | |
|Dec. 31st, ” | 5·584 | — | 132·984 | |
|March 31st, 1863 | — | 20·793 | | |
|June 30th, ” | — | — | 458·672 | |
|Dec. 31st, ” | 13·767 | | | |
|March 31st, 1864 | — | 60·821 | 48·845 | |
|June 30th, ” | — | 13·843 | 9·042 | |
|Sept. 30th, ” | — | — | 783·347 | |
|Dec. 31st, ” | 39·679 | | | |
|March 31st, 1865 | 17·660 | — | 147·780 | |
|June 30th, ” | — | — | 480·346 | |
|August 31st, ” | — | 1·020 | 195·546 | |
|March 31st, 1866 | 58·632 | — | 230·515 | |
|May 30th, ” | 5·037 | — | 136·014 | |
|Sept. 30th, ” | — | — | 631·037 | |
|March 31st, 1867 | — | — | 260·352 | |
|June 30th, ” | 3·562 | — | 158·951 | |
|August 31st, ” | — | 0·205 | 43·033 | |
|March 31st, 1868 | — | — | 271·540 | |
|June 30th, ” | — | — | 222·545 | |
|Sept. 30th, ” | 19·873 | — | 19·897 | |
+------------------+------------+----------+-----------+---------+

[Footnote 60: Specially referred to on page 94.]

[Footnote 61: Specially referred to on page 94.]

[Footnote 62: Specially referred to on page 94.]

[Footnote 63: Specially referred to on page 94.]

These are grave charges, but an inquiry could not fail to establish their truthfulness. To return, then, to the table at page 90, it will be observed that the loss of 1859-60 increased in the years 1860-62 to £45 3_s._ 5_d._; but the stimulus applied by the renewed support of the Master reproduced its legitimate results, and in 1862-63, instead of a loss of bullion, there was a gain of £11 3_s._ 8_d._, which, with the sweep, made £50 10_s._ 7_d._, and this increased in 1863-64 to £91 5_s._ 1_d._

STATEMENT OF LOSSES INCURRED AND OF SWEEP RECOVERED.
THIS REFERS WHOLLY TO GOLD IN THE MELTING DEPARTMENT.

+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| | Weight of | |
| Date—Financial Year. | Coinage. | Value of Coinage. |
| | | |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._|
|Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 351837·830 | 1,369,968 11 0 |
|April 1852 to March 1853 | 3058360·186 | 11,908,489 19 5½ |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 2726011·580 | 10,614,407 11 9¾ |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 812219·517 | 3,162,579 14 10½ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 2158391·456 | 8,404,236 14 7½ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1254703·786 | 4,885,502 17 2 |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 1256586·572 | 4,892,833 19 4 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 736150·582 | 2,866,386 6 6¾ |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 980070·679 | 3,816,150 4 2 |
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | 861205·000 | 3,353,316 19 5 |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 1872214·638 | 7,289,935 14 11 |
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | 2351444·336 | 9,155,936 7 8 |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 1807332·130 | 7,037,299 9 8 |
| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 1949438·200 | 7,590,624 19 10 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 1256347·104 | 4,891,901 10 9 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 175838·208 | 684,670 0 5 |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 109580·129 | 426,677 12 1¾ |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
+---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| |Weight of| Value of | Value of |
| Date--Financial Year. | Lost | Lost Metal. | Sweep. |
| | Metal. | | |
+---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._|
|Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 91·456 | 356 2 1½ |133 0 2 |
|April 1852 to March 1853 |1332·474 |5,188 6 4¾ |708 10 0 |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 728·088 |2,834 19 10½ |709 9 8¼ |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 223·811 | 871 9 3¼ |209 2 4¾ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 867·277 |3,376 19 2¼ |805 5 4¾ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 515·298 |2,006 8 9¾ |469 1 5¾ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 275·452 |1,072 10 10 |262 18 5¾ |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 248·804 | 969 15 7¼ |231 2 1½ |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 259·069 |1,008 15 0 |240 16 3 |
+---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | | | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 17·668 |3,183 15 11 |729 19 10½ |
+---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | 636·395 |2,477 19 3 |590 2 7 |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 629·815 |2,452 6 10 |507 11 0 |
| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 464·080 |1,807 0 8 |509 10 0 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 585·622 |2,280 5 4 |535 5 0 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 37·440 | 145 15 8 | Nil. |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | — | — | 71 10 6 |
+---------------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
+---------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| | Value of | Value of |
| Date—Financial Year. | Lost Metal | Sweep |
| | per Million. | per Million. |
+---------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ |
|Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 259 18 9½ | 97 1 9¼ |
|April 1852 to March 1853 | 435 13 7¾ | 59 9 10¾ |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 267 1 9¼ | 66 16 10 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 275 11 1 | 66 2 5½ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 401 16 3¾ | 95 16 4 |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 410 13 10¼ | 96 0 3¼ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | ‡219 4 1¼ | ‡53 14 8½ |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | ‡337 19 7 | ‡80 12 6¼ |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 264 16 8 | 63 2 0 |
+---------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 297 10 1 | 68 11 9 |
+---------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | 270 12 9 | 64 9 0 |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 348 9 6 | 72 2 5 |
| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 238 1 2 | 67 2 5 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 466 2 6 | 109 8 2 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 212 18 6 | Nil. |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | — | 167 12 6¾ |
+---------------------------+----------------+---------------+

This mark (‡) is intended to attract the attention when at
pages 98, 103, these figures are discussed. To obtain the
true amount of loss, deduct the value of the sweep from the
value of the gold lost.

RETURN TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 1870. THE LORD ROSSIE. NO. 2.

FROM THE MELTING DEPARTMENT OF THE ROYAL MINT.

A STATEMENT of the Weight and Value of the Gold Moneys coined in each Financial Year from 1851 to 1869 inclusive, exhibiting the Weight and Value of the Loss or Waste sustained in each year, as well as the Value of Sweep recovered, and the average Proportion of such Loss or Waste and Sweep recovered to each Million Pounds Sterling coined.

+----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+
| Date. | Weight of | Value of Coinage. |
| | Coinage. | |
+----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s._ _d._ |
| Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 351837·830 | 1,369,968 11 0 |
| April 1852 to March 1853 | 3058360·186 | 11,908,489 19 5 |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 2726011·580 | 10,614,407 11 10 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 812219·517 | 3,162,579 14 10 |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 2158391·456 | 8,404,236 14 7 |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1254703·786 | 4,885,502 17 4 |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 1256586·572 | 4,892,833 19 4 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 736150·582 | 2,866,386 6 7 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 980070·679 | 3,816,150 4 2 |
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | 861205·000 | 3,353,316 19 5 |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 1872214·638 | 7,289,935 14 11 |
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | 2351444·336 | 9,155,936 7 8 |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 1807332·130 | 7,037,299 9 8 |
| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 1949438·200 | 7,590,624 19 10 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 1256347·104 | 4,891,901 10 9 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 175838·208 | 684,670 0 5 |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 127485·816 | 496,397 17 11 |
| ” 1868 ” 1869 | 1270778·550 | 4,948,093 19 7 |
+----------------------------+-------------+----------------------+
+----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+
| Date. | Amount | Value of | Value of |
| | of | Waste. | Sweep |
| | Waste. | | recovered. |
+----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+
| | Ounces.| £ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._|
| Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 91·456| 356 2 2 |133 0 2 |
| April 1852 to March 1853 |1332·474|5,188 6 5 |708 10 0 |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 728·088|2,834 19 11 |709 9 8¼ |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 223·811| 871 9 3 |209 2 4¾ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 867·277|3,376 19 2 |805 5 4¾ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 515·298|2,006 8 10 |469 1 1¾ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 275·452|1,072 10 10 |262 18 5¾ |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 248·804| 968 15 7 |281 2 1½ |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 259·069|1,008 15 0 |240 16 3 |
| ” 1860 ” 1861 } | | | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 } | 817·668|3,183 15 11 |729 19 10½ |
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | 636·395|2,477 19 3 |590 2 7 |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 629·815|2,452 6 10 |507 11 0 |
| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 464·080|1,807 0 3 |509 10 0 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 585·622|2,280 5 4 |535 5 0 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 37·440| 145 15 8 | Nil. |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 54·460| 212 1 0 | 71 10 6 |
| ” 1868 ” 1869 | 701·084|2,729 16 11 |788 7 4 |
+----------------------------+--------+---------------+-------------+
+----------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Date. | Value of Waste | Value of Sweep |
| | per £1,000,000. | per £1,000,000. |
+----------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ |
| Nov. 1851 to March 1852 | 259 18 10 | 97 1 9 |
| April 1852 to March 1853 | 435 13 8 | 59 9 11 |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 267 1 9 | 66 16 10 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 275 11 1 | 66 2 6 |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 401 16 4 | 95 16 4 |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 410 13 10 | 96 0 3 |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 219 4 1 | 53 14 8 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 337 19 7 | 80 12 6 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 264 6 8 | 63 2 0 |
| ” 1860 ” 1861 } | | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 } | 297 10 1 | 68 11 9 |
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | 270 12 9 | 64 9 0 |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 348 9 6 | 72 2 5 |
| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 238 1 2 | 67 2 5 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 466 2 6 | 109 8 2 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 212 18 6 | Nil. |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 427 3 6 | 144 1 9 |
| ” 1868 ” 1869 | 551 13 4 | 159 6 6 |
+----------------------------+------------------+------------------+
C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY-MASTER OF THE MINT.
ROYAL MINT, _2nd March_, 1870.

In November, 1863, Mr. John Graham was appointed; but he did not interfere in the coining department until about March, 1864. The disastrous effects of his mismanagement now became apparent, and the losses have again made, it is to be feared, an habitual appearance. In the first year of his efforts, the loss per million[64] became £22 6_s._ 2_d._, the sweep selling for £38 18_s._ 6_d._, giving a gain of £16 12_s._ 4_d._ only; in the next year, a gain of £25 14_s._ 7_d._; and it was now determined, notwithstanding a written protest, that the sweep and _scrap_ were not worth collecting, so they were lost. The next two years exhibit absolute losses of £28 12_s._ 10_d._ and £30 12_s._ 8½_d._ per million respectively, while in September, 1868, a loss of 19·873 ounces is recorded as a balance; yet it is a fact that no gold was ever produced to satisfy this balance, so that in my opinion it will be correct to state that the loss is at the rate of £70 14_s._ 5¾_d._ on each million coined. Unless upon the existence of such facts, it is difficult to understand why the Mint authorities should not publish annually an official statement of the loss or gain made by coining gold and silver, as well as the amount coined; but, that the whole details may be complete, it is now necessary to enter upon the discussion of the melting-house accounts. The table on p. 96 exhibits the operations of that department upon the same gold as that just discussed. If, as in the case of the table relating to the coining department, the total loss between November, 1851, and March, 1857, be reduced by the value of the sweep sold, it will appear to be, on gold, £11,599·825, and this divided by £40,345,185·450, the total sum coined, will give an average loss of £280 7_s._ 8¾_d._ per million coined, when, as was admittedly the case, the gold scissel was saturated to dropping with oil.[64] Let us now see if this loss be increased by the reduction of the amount of oil which was formerly sent to the melter on the scissel.

[Footnote 64: See page 90.]

When in 1857-58 the loss by coining was put a stop to, and a gain was produced, it was roundly asserted that the melter’s account would show that the _loss_, so far from being stopped, had only been transferred from one department to another; but by examining the table now under discussion, it will be seen that when, in 1857-58,[65] the _gain_ of £25 4_s._ 10½_d._ occurred in the coining department, so far from there being a CORRESPONDING LOSS in the melting-house, that which had averaged £280 7_s._ 8¼_d._, fell to £165 9_s._ 4¾_d._,[65]—as will be seen by deducting the sweep sold from the loss recorded in the year 1857-58. When, in the next year, the gain by coining rose to £50 13_s._, the melter’s loss did not reach its former average amount, for in that year, when he had as large an amount of brittle gold to contend with as in 1858, his loss was £257 7_s._ 0¾_d._,[66] or still below the old average; whereas, if from this period the loss be estimated, it will be found that its average is £212 6_s._ 1_d._ per million coined, as against £280 7_s._ 8¼_d._, or a clear saving of £68 1_s._ 7_d._ effected by lessening the amount of oil on the scissel (explained at page 87); and this amount may fairly be added to the total sum saved per million coined, which will be for coining £494, for melting £68 1_s._ 7_d._, making together £562 1_s._ 7_d._ on each million coined. That the loss by melting should reach the extravagant sum of £212 per million coined—Mr. Mathison, the contractor under the Company of Moneyers, made an average loss of £112 only—can hardly be maintained even in the Royal Mint; that it does occur is indisputable. The cause for it is not far to seek; yet it is hardly within my scope in this place to point out the means by which it should be reduced to within the limit of £100, which is demonstrably the maximum limit it should be permitted to reach. This, then, is the state of affairs as regards loss by the coining of gold.

[Footnote 65: See page 96.]

[Footnote 66: See page 96.]

Thus far I have considered the rate of loss at a period when such loss was deemed to be _necessary_; its reduction when it was demonstrated to be _unnecessary_, as resulting from preventible causes, and, in continuation, the means whereby _loss should be prevented to the establishment of the absolute profit_, if a correct system be established throughout the Mint. I now proceed to show the re-establishment of the old system of UNNECESSARY LOSS—loss which should not and would not be permitted in any well-regulated institution; but when men are permitted to travel at the expense of the country to European Mints, with the simple object of finding reasons why loss should arise, and authorities for its existence, we must hush our surprise, and be thankful if that loss do not exceed the amount heretofore reached. To me it appeared singular that the Mint Officials should be present in the House of Lords and hear Lord Lansdowne state from his place that “upon exact inquiry he had been assured that a loss of one shilling on £100 was not an unreasonable sum,” without subsequent protest against such a statement. It is more singular if one should compare that estimated loss with what those Officials state in their “Reports on European Mints;” but it is most singular, that by studying the returns made by those Officials to the House of Lords, it becomes apparent that throughout the whole affair there is exhibited a great disregard of the exact truth. To make clear my view of the case, I will adduce the three statements. Lord Lansdowne’s fixed sum of a shilling on £100, is equivalent to £500 on a million; while Mr. Fremantle, at page 7, “European Mints,” states that careful enquiry has shown, that as regards melting “in all Mints, considerable allowance is made for such loss, and that the ‘waste,’ shown to have existed of late years in the English Mint has not been excessive.” The return shows that between 1866-69 it averaged £296 per million.[67] Mr. Roberts says: “In the English Mint the amount of loss on gold by melting is considered to be 0·173 per mille, or a grain on the troy pound;” that is to say, £173 on a million. Why cannot these Authorities agree? Lord Lansdowne, of course, speaks on instructions received, probably from Mr. Fremantle, who thus exhibits his inability to agree with himself, and agreement with his fellow-traveller seems hopeless; for whereas Mr. Fremantle reduces Lord Lansdowne’s loss from £500 to £296, Mr. Roberts reduces the latter sum nearly 50 per cent., and states it at £173.

[Footnote 67: See pages 97, 101.]

I will now refer to the returns made to the order of the House of Lords on the motion of Lord Kinnaird, and which, for this purpose, I have printed on pages 91, 97, opposite the tables obtained from the same source whence these returns were made. By the return (see page 97) the Mint Authorities clearly admit that whereas the loss by melting was in 1866-67 only £212 18_s._ 6_d._, it became, in 1867-68, £283 1_s._ 9_d._, and increased to £392 6_s._ 10_d._ in the subsequent year, as will be seen if the value of the sweep be deducted from that of the waste. It appears to me that such startling facts require attentive enquiry, especially if it be borne in mind that the loss by melting as shown in the return was so little as £165 9_s._ 5_d._ in 1857-58. Since, however, it is now the custom in the Mint to pass the bars for coining, directly from the melting-house to the coining department—in accordance with the recommendation made by me in my Report to the Master of the Mint dated 29th of January, 1859—so as to bring the whole operation of coining under one responsible officer, as I therein urged, it is but right I should give the Mint the benefit of any advantage that can be obtained by a retrospective treatment of accounts, and therefore I will refer to the table on page 101 which shows the final result of operations conducted in the coining and melting departments. In cases where gain was made by coining I will deduct such gain from the loss by melting, and where loss by coining took place I will add it to that by melting. Thus treated then, the loss by melting and coining for 1866-67 becomes £241 11_s._ 4_d._, for 1867-68 £309 8_s._ 4_d._, and for 1868-69 £319 9_s._ 1_d._, or a steadily increasing amount, as will be seen subsequently on page 104.

As regards loss on gold, enquiry would prove that a remarkable oblivion to all carefulness or the principles of economy exists in the minds of Mint Officials; for this noble metal, being one of the most dense as well as one of the most valuable, can be packed away into a small space; hence the utmost care, guided by knowledge of the subject, is necessary if waste is to be prevented. To start with that indisputable axiom, “matter cannot be lost,” is but to have the truth placed in unmistakable language; yet by the return[68] made to Lord Kinnaird’s motion a most startling contradiction to this truism is brought to light. The Mint Authorities, from the time of the government occupation of the Royal Mint, have manifestly _omitted_ to think that “matter cannot be lost,” and they have assumed that the mere fact of subdivision must entail loss; but this fallacy is at once dissipated if Lord Kinnaird’s idea be adopted. He, in his speech in the House of Lords, said: “If any of your lordships will place a thousand sovereigns in a box, and cause the box to be shaken until the sovereigns have reduced themselves to impalpable powder, and will then weigh the dust—gold-dust—produced, it will be found that the dust now weighs the exact weight of the sovereigns before shaking.” So apt an illustration would be spoiled by comment, yet we find that the return (see page 102) exhibits the fact that the Mint has paid to the Bank of England sums varying from £1,132 to as low as £161 for each million of gold coined into sovereigns. Now the processes necessary to the conversion of gold into sovereigns is merely one of subdivision—of less degree than absolute powdering—therefore it is quite clear there can be no loss of gold. If there be any missing, it is because it is misplaced. Misplaced gold is practically lost, because Mint experiences appear to be adverse to the finding of the place of secretion. By this return it appears that the Mint has actually paid so large a total sum as £59,084 1_s._ 4_d._, in seventeen years to the Bank of England for gold which should have been returned to that institution. The Government of Mr. Gladstone, professedly desiring to economise governmental expenditure, permits this!!!

[Footnote 68: See page 102.]

While it is the opinion of the Government that LOSS IS REASONABLE, it is hopeless to expect a stoppage of that which should not be permitted; yet it is right to state that these losses are not only demonstrably unnecessary, but that they have been proved by practice to be capable of great reduction, as shown by the following table, compiled from the returns before quoted on pages 91, 97.

STATEMENT showing the ultimate Loss by Coining Gold, by Melting Gold, and the Gain by Coining Gold, as also the absolute Loss resulting from both operations, from 1851 to 1869. Compiled from the Returns for which _Lord Kinnaird_ moved.

AVERAGE RATE FOR EACH MILLION COINED.

+---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| Date. | Ultimate _Loss_ by | Ultimate _Gain_ by |
|Financial Year.| Coining £1,000,000 | Coining £1,000,000 |
| | Gold. | Gold. |
+---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ |
|1851-1852 | 315 8 7 | |
|1852-1853 | 545 6 10 | |
|1853-1854 | 595 6 9 | |
|1854-1855 | 451 13 9 | |
|1855-1856 | 418 1 3 | |
|1856-1857 | 377 0 6 | |
|1857-1858 | | 25 4 10 |
|1858-1859 | | 50 12 11 |
|1859-1860 | 9 15 2 | |
|1860-1862 | 45 3 5 | |
|1862-1863 | | 51 0 3 |
|1863-1864 | | 91 5 1 |
|1864-1865 | | 16 12 4 |
|1865-1866 | | 25 14 7 |
|1866-1867 | 28 12 10 | |
|1867-1868 | 26 6 7 | |
|1868-1869 | | 72 17 9 |
+---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| Date. | Ultimate _Loss_ by | Ultimate _Loss_ by |
|Financial Year.| Melting Ingots, &c. | both Operations. |
| | for £1,000,000 Gold.| |
+---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ |
|1851-1852 | 162 17 1 | 478 5 8 |
|1852-1853 | 376 3 9 | 921 10 7 |
|1853-1854 | 200 4 11 | 795 11 8 |
|1854-1855 | 209 8 7 | 661 2 4 |
|1855-1856 | 306 0 0 | 724 1 3 |
|1856-1857 | 314 13 7 | 691 14 1 |
|1857-1858 | 165 9 5 | 140 4 7 |
|1858-1859 | 257 7 1 | 206 14 2 |
|1859-1860 | 201 4 8 | 210 19 10 |
|1860-1862 | 228 18 4 | 274 1 9 |
|1862-1863 | 206 3 9 | 155 3 6 |
|1863-1864 | 276 7 1 | 185 2 0 |
|1864-1865 | 170 18 9 | 164 6 5 |
|1865-1866 | 356 14 4 | 330 19 9 |
|1866-1867 | 212 18 6 | 241 11 4 |
|1867-1868 | 283 1 9 | 309 8 4 |
|1868-1869 | 392 6 10 | 319 9 1 |
+---------------+---------------------+--------------------+

RETURN FROM THE ROYAL MINT TO AN ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 1870. THE LORD ROSSIE.

A Statement showing the individual sums paid by cheque by the Master of the Mint to the Bank of England in consideration of any loss or waste by coining gold, by melting gold, and by assaying gold on each occasion of a balance of accounts by those institutions between 1851 and 1869 inclusive, specifying the proportional payments in relation to each million coined during the several periods.

[Footnote 69: A coinage having been in progress on the 31st of March, 1869, no waste account was made up at the close of the financial year 1868-69.]

In this table (page 101) care has been taken to remove every item which can mislead, and therefore the ultimate or absolute loss to the Mint is alone put forward; and while the subsequent table (page 102) shows the money and its rate per million actually paid to the Bank for loss; this shows the internal accounts of the operative departments in the Mint only, so that every item which can reduce the loss has been admitted, and it is therefore necessary to point out that each sum exhibited in the last column as the ultimate loss by both operations, is the rate for each million coined, all being under precisely similar circumstances in every respect. I have excluded loss by assay.

If this table (page 101) be examined, it will be seen that between 1851 and 1857 there was an invariable statement of loss by coining; then between 1857 and 1859 a period of gain; to be followed in the next two periods, 1859 to 1862, by loss, which was again overcome; and for the next four years a varying gain, alternated by two years of loss, and followed finally by another statement of gain.

Enquiry may fairly be made why, if up to 1857 loss had been permitted, gain could subsequently be established. The reply is, that the management of the coining department was placed under myself by Mr. Graham, and I acted firmly on my belief that “matter cannot be lost;” hence, if the accounts were short, I made the men hunt the floors—not the chimneys—carefully until the gold was found.

The Master of the Mint then discouraged my efforts, and the result was rapidly increasing loss, until I placed on the Master[70] the responsibility of such loss, when there returned four years of gain, thus once more proving that under proper management loss would not occur; but from this period I was removed from responsible management, and the result was a return to the habitual loss. This would appear to have been overcome in the year 1868-1869, for in that year a gain to the extent of £72 17_s._ 9_d._ (see Return, page 91) is exhibited. It will be necessary to examine this gain to see how far it is real, and the proof is at hand that it is obtained under false pretences.

For special reasons which are not exhibited,[71] the figures relating to 1851-1852 on the table at page 96 are fictitious; the fact being that losses which should have been stated are excluded. If, however, the table from 1852 to 1869 be examined it will be observed that the ultimate loss by melting varies considerably, but that in the year 1857-1858 it fell to £165 9_s._ 5_d._, while in that year a gain was made by coining to the extent of £25 4_s._ 10_d._[72] This gain being deducted from the loss by melting, leaves a final loss of £140 4_s._ 7_d._, as will be seen in the last column at page 101. To test then the gain shown in 1868-69 by the same rule, it will be observed that while the coining department (see page 101) made a profit of £72 17_s._ 9_d._,[73] the loss by melting was £392 6_s._ 10_d._, or higher in amount than it has been in _any previous year_, so that the gain claimed for coining is _false_—it has not arisen—it is a STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, obtained by sending inaccurate weights of bullion to the melter, and thus shifting to that department the loss which fairly belonged to the coiner. The same remark applies to the year 1865-1866, when it will be seen that the system of loss fairly reset in.

[Footnote 70: See page 94.]

[Footnote 71: See page 83.]

[Footnote 72: See page 90.]

[Footnote 73: See also page 91.]

BONA FIDE GAIN BY COINING GOLD IN ITS FINAL OUT-TURN is only to be obtained by the possession of a firm belief in the impossibility of legitimate loss, and by entrusting the operations of coining to such men as appreciate the fact that it is atoms which build up the universe. I proved, and maintained my assertion for years, that there should be no loss, but on the other hand gain, by coining gold, and this I did with a reduction in the loss by melting to a lower point than has ever before or since been known, and with a total loss from both causes of only £140 4_s._ 7_d._ (see pages 101-102); and, had occasion served, it was always intended that I should direct the melting of gold as I had done that of silver,[74] for as I had clearly shown that coining could be fairly conducted without loss, the Master was to have given me an opportunity to show the same facts in melting.

Of this loss of £140 4_s._ 7_d._ in the final out-turn of gold, it should be explained that at that date the system of weighing to and from the bank was such that there was on that coinage a difference of weighing _against the Mint_ of £75 on each million, so that had just weighments been made, my loss from all causes being reduced by that amount would have been £65 4_s._ 7_d._ on each million coined.

With such facts established and stated in the return to the House of Lords, it is at least singular that Lord Lansdowne should support his assertion that 1_s._ on £100 is a moderate and fair loss, by stating that this is also the opinion of eminent refiners in London. In my experience refiners do not know what their losses are, for their customers bear them. By special agreement with Sir A. Rothschild, the Mint pays 4_d._ per ounce on the total sent for refining, and receives back all the gold and silver; but the general public, by previous agreement, submit to a deduction of weight, and thus pay the expenses of refining. Mr. Graham, in his paper published after his brother’s failure to conduct the gold coinage as I had done, fixed the loss at £300 on a million. Lord Lansdowne now fixes it at 1_s._ on £100; that is, at the rate of £500 on a million; and this sum is being rapidly approached, for Lord Kinnaird’s return shows that for the past three years it has averaged £464.[75] And since such a loss is to be borne and pleasantly spoken of by _Mr. Lowe_, the Master of the Mint, as “going up the chimney,” it is well to see if that can take place.

[Footnote 74: See page 136.]

[Footnote 75: See page 102.]

The volatilization of gold and silver requires an extremely high temperature. This temperature is never reached in melting the precious metals for coinage; therefore vapour of gold or of silver cannot by any possibility be conveyed into the chimney; consequently, cannot be found there. That this statement is true, has been demonstrated satisfactorily in Brussels, where the chimneys were discreetly searched to find the silver which the contractors were informed would be found: the chief contractor assured me that they failed to find the most minute trace of either silver or gold. Yet Mr. Roberts, at page 23, “European Mints,” says, “The precious metals actually volatilized may be arrested by condensation. This point has received much attention in the Roman Mint, where the flues of the gold melting furnaces have been placed in communication with condensing chambers of simple construction, the adoption of which has been attended with very satisfactory results.” On page 17 he has already said “I strongly recommend that a condensing chamber be attached to the flues of the gold melting furnaces. Such chambers have not hitherto been used in the Mint in this country, but their advantage has been proved in the Roman Mint, where they have been the means of effecting a considerable saving.”

It is with regret that one sees men entrusted with the control of so great a work as our coinage, making propositions on the authority of the Roman Mint, whose gold coinage is perhaps the smallest in Europe. If, however, Mr. Roberts should conduct on a large scale the plan _he has devised_ for removing the obnoxious properties from brittle gold, these chambers may become useful. In the meantime the present Mint chimneys have the accumulations of more than sixty years, and it would be quite worth while to pull them down and obtain the £59,000[76] which the Mint admits to have lost (see page 101). Are the chimneys lined with finely-divided gold, or does that metal accumulate in ingots? if the latter be the case, their draught must be slightly impeded, for fifty-nine thousand pounds worth of gold would more than fill an imperial bushel; in the popular view a “thousand sovereigns fill a quart measure.” If Mr. Roberts should fail to find any trace of gold, he can re-consider his proposition; should he, however, find the sum which has been supposed to be lost, that treasure will pay the cost of new chimneys.

[Footnote 76: See page 102.]

If, instead of Lord Lansdowne appealing to Lord Kinnaird’s generosity to leave unsaid things which should be said, his Lordship would refute the facts and figures which Lord Kinnaird places before their Lordships’ House, it seems probable that the question would be settled; but while Lord Lansdowne simply pleads that “the person who supplies information to Lord Kinnaird is only a dismissed clerk,” it becomes manifest that the facts placed before Lord Kinnaird are awkward to contradict, and still more awkward to explain, except by the painful delusion Lord Lansdowne adopts—that “his lordship confuses the accounts.” It may fairly be admitted that the accounts furnished by the Mint Authorities to the House of Commons are stated in such a manner that bankers and merchants find it impossible to comprehend them, and to arrive at their meaning, more than one banker in London _has applied to me_ to unravel those statements which have been characterised as “such that if our younger clerk were to present them he would be dismissed our service.” Still, that Lord Kinnaird has not fallen into this error has, it is hoped, been now made fully manifest. Lord Lansdowne, in continuation, stated that “the author of this book appears to have left unnoticed the losing operations in the Mint, and Lord Kinnaird seems to have fallen into the trap.” Had Lord Lansdowne looked into the book he thus criticized, he would have found that each process of gain and loss is treated at considerable length, but none with more detail than the processes of the melting both for gold and silver, as he will learn if he will refer to the book, now out of print, but a copy of which is in the Mint Library—for gold melting, at pages 69, 74, 81, 82, 83; and for silver melting, at pages 101, 104, 109, 111, where it will be clearly seen that these losses are dwelt upon and shown to be inexcusable. The returns upon which I have thus commented are also of importance as introducing a new system in accounts—that of altering such accounts without reason assigned or explanation given. If the return on page 91 be examined for the year April 1867 to March 1868, it will be seen that a variation exists between it and my table on page 90; for whereas I state the value of the coinage for that year at £426,677 12_s._ 1¾_d._ and the loss at 3·357 ounces, or at the rate of £30 12_s._ 8¼_d._ on the million coined, the return states the money coined at £496,397 17_s._ 11_d._; and leaving unaltered the _amount of loss_, shows it to be at the rate of £26 6_s._ 7_d._ per million coined, a similar alteration has been made in the account of the melting department. Seeing that my figures were those supplied by the then Deputy Master to the late Master of the Mint, I cannot comprehend why those accounts should be issued by Mr. Fremantle, who has entered the Mint since that gentleman’s death, with a variation in the figures, but I shall presently show that such a proceeding is not confined to this one transaction.

While the subject of accounts is under notice, I think it right to observe upon a passage in Mr. Fremantle’s “Report on European Mints,” at page 7, in which that gentleman says—

“I propose, also, that the ‘sweep,’ under which term are
comprised dust collected from the floors, carbonaceous
deposits from flues, ground-up crucibles, &c., should be
treated in the Mint, instead of being sold, as at present,
to the highest bidder. It will be important to determine
what metallurgical process should be adopted with a view
of carrying this intention into effect; but the step
cannot fail to be advantageous to the Mint, not only as
tending to economy, but also more especially as enabling
the _department to substitute a real for a fictitious
statement of ‘waste,’ the regulations of the public
service_ NOT ALLOWING THE PROCEEDS OF THE ‘SWEEP’,
_when sold to the public, to be brought to account_
AS A SET-OFF AGAINST THE GROSS AMOUNT OF LOSS.”

that while I quite appreciate his thus carrying out the suggestion I never ceased to urge, I do object to his stating that which is hardly true as indicated by the passages I have marked. Such a statement must have been a slip of the pen, as it is but necessary to refer to the returns made to the House of Lords[77] to exhibit the fact that these accounts are now kept and actually published to Parliament, and in my own knowledge, those returns are accurate—not false—for I saw much of the money paid for the sweep, which I delivered to the purchasers on the authority of Mr. Barton. There is no sense in which these returns can be said to be false unless in the one year I have pointed out. If they be false, is it not a serious matter for any one to sign his name and submit them as accurate to Parliament?

Previous Next

Comments

The Royal MintChapter VII: Part 7

0%36 min left in chapter