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.