A STATEMENT of the Weight and Value of the Silver 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 |Amount of|
| | Coinage. | Coinage. | Waste. |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s. d._| Ounces. |
|August 1851 to March 1852| 314689·050| 86,539 9 9 | |
|April 1852 to March 1853 |1088196·550|299,254 1 0 |1496·945 |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
| ” 1853 ” 1854 |2134891·750|587,095 4 8 |1814·808 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 501459·800|137,901 8 11 | 882·870 |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 |1138355·000|313,047 12 6 | 519·069 |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 |1792800·000|493,020 0 0 |2912·149 |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 |1420560·000|390,654 0 0 |1001·676 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 |1449360·000|398,574 0 0 | 484·490 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 |2052720·000|564,498 0 0 | 199·288 |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | 625714·000|172,071 7 0 | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 769680·000|211,662 0 0 |*+20·516 |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | 532147·610|146,340 11 10 | |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 835920·000|229,878 0 0 | +48·918 |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
| ” 1864 ” 1865 |1936800·000|532,620 0 0 |1516·266 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 |1880640·000|517,176 0 0 |3296·589 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 |1739520·000|478,368 0 0 |2923·255 |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 961200·000|264,330 0 0 |1526·136 |
| ” 1868 ” 1869 | 597600·000|164,340 0 0 | 599·329 |
+-------------------------+-----------+---------------+---------+
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| Date. | Value of |Value of Sweep|
| | Waste. | recovered. |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| |£ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._ |
|August 1851 to March 1852| | |
|April 1852 to March 1853 |411 13 2 | 155 19 5½ |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| ” 1853 ” 1854 |499 1 5 | 143 2 4 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 |242 15 9 | 187 19 7 |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 |142 14 11 | 144 0 2¼ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 |800 16 10 | 151 12 4¼ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 |275 9 3 | 100 13 6¼ |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 |133 4 8 | 115 4 11 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 54 16 1 | 101 8 8 |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 5 12 10 | 203 8 10½ |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | | |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 13 9 1 | 120 6 2 |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| ” 1864 ” 1865 |416 19 6 | 278 1 1½ |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 |906 11 3 | 104 5 8 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 |803 17 11 | Nil. |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 |419 13 9 | 347 4 3½ |
| ” 1868 ” 1869 |164 16 3 | 31 0 11 |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
+-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Date. |Value of Waste |Value of Sweep |
| |per £1,000,000.|per £1,000,000.|
+-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| | £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._ |
|August 1851 to March 1852| | |
|April 1852 to March 1853 | 1,067 0 10 | 404 5 9 |
+-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 850 1 4 | 243 15 4 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 1,760 11 8 |1,363 2 10 |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 455 19 8 | 460 0 3 |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1,624 7 2 | 307 10 6 |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 705 2 7 | 257 14 2 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 334 5 6 | 289 2 10 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 97 1 8 | 179 13 9 |
+-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 14 14 0 | 530 3 3 |
+-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | | |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 35 15 2 | 319 15 7 |
+-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 782 17 4 | 522 1 0 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 1,752 18 2 | 201 12 9 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 1,680 9 11 | Nil. |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 1,587 14 9 |1,313 11 3 |
| ” 1868 ” 1869 | 1,002 17 6 | 188 18 2 |
+-------------------------+---------------+---------------+
_Note._—The Financial Years 1860/1861 1861/1862
1862/1863 1863/1864 exhibit a _gain_ in the
Melting Department.
C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER AND COMPTROLLER.
ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.
By similar treatment to that applied to the table on page 132 this will
yield an average loss between June, 1851, and March, 1857, of £698
13_s._ 3_d._ per million coined; whereas in the period from April,
1857, to March, 1860, there is a gain by melting of £87 13_s._ 3_d._
per million pounds sterling coined. To look a little more closely into
these figures, it will be observed that in the year 1858-59 there was
a positive gain of no less than £505 16_s._ 2½_d._ on each million
coined; this is not to be explained by any known fact, but it seems
probable that in that year a circumstance occurred that had happened
many times previously, and from the prevalence of the same folly. At
the Mint Office it is the custom to weigh the silver from the coining
department to the melting department in drafts of 1,440 ounces, or
for occasions of 720 ounces. Now it not unfrequently happens that the
weigher leaves the counting of the number of drafts to his scalesman,
and so an error creeps in. Some days afterwards the coining department
finds itself short, say 720 ounces, and by searching its books
finds it has been credited with too little on a specific day; after
investigation the error is admitted, and the old receipt altered. Now
such an error happened on the 3rd of August, 1858, when 1,440 ounces,
or two journeys, were delivered, but not credited; however, on the
16th August this was discovered, and the receipt altered at the Mint
Office. It is probable that the melter never made a corresponding
alteration in his books, and if that be the case, the gain of 1858-59
will disappear, to be replaced by a loss of £487 0_s._ 8¼_d._, which
would appear to be more natural. Should these lines meet the eye of
the officer concerned, he could at once see if this be the explanation
of so large a gain, and which has caused him much anxiety. That a gain
can be made by melting is not a fact, although, if the statement be
examined for the year 1855-56, it will be seen that a gain of £3 0_s._
10¼_d._ appears to have been made; and once more, in 1859-60 a plus of
£82 12_s._ 0¾_d._ per million seems to have been realised. These facts,
taken as they stand, would mislead, and for reasons which shall now be
stated. Sufficient is, however, here shown to prove that the stoppage
of the use of oil effected a reduction in the habitual loss of the
melting-house, while this fact renders it impossible to show that the
stoppage of loss in the coining department was due to the more free use
of oil and dirt (see page 131).
In July and August, 1858, the melter being absent on leave, I was
directed by written order of the Master to take his duties. Silver
being under operation, the following quantities were melted, and with
the results recorded:—
GIVEN TO MELT.
Ounces.
Ingots and alloy 434,393·548
Scissel 457,032·810
Clean ends 1,440·000
Extra alloy 499·539
Plus on weight charged by Mint Office 51·680
-----------
893,417·573
PRODUCED BY MELTING.
Ounces.
Bars 889,974·690
Ends 2,154·750
Grains 462·050
Assays 114·230
Loss by melting 711·853
-----------
893,417·573
To analyse this loss—for by weight it was absolute—will give much
information, and the details of proportionate loss were as follows:—
On each Million
Ounces Melted.
On ingots of silver (produced from lead by Pattinson’s
process) and alloy for the manufacture of medals 947·91
On ingots, 5-franc pieces, and alloy 263·85
On ingots, 5-franc pieces, scissel, and alloy 418·40
Worn coin (culled from circulation) and scissel 710·06
Scissel melted by itself 1,036·45
--------
Mean Loss 675·34
Thus, then, it appears that upon this weight of silver and alloy there
was, when melted, a loss of 711·853 ounces, or a mean loss of 675·34
ounces in standard silver; yet, on two undoubted occasions, the table
above given[114] exhibits a gain upon the work of two whole years;
why, therefore, should the loss just stated have been permitted to
take place, when every atom of metal was weighed in the presence of
witnesses before being placed in the pots, and was not lost sight of by
the officers concerned until it was returned to the scales to be again
weighed? The reply is simple: the gain in 1855-56 and 1859-60 was not
made, and its appearance is simply a matter of account, for the melter
was not accustomed to, and probably to this day does not, weigh silver
into his melting-pots—he is, or was, satisfied with the Mint Office
weights, which are so far from accurate that no ironmonger would accept
them.
On this melting alone, including 29 days’ receipts from the Mint
Office, there were differences to the extent of 82·11 ounces plus
their weight, and 30·43 ounces minus their weight, so that if the one
be deducted it still leaves an absolute plus on the weight charged by
the Mint Office of 51·68 ounces. Here, then, is a means of gain;[115]
but if the increase of weight derived from this source be taken on the
ingots and five-franc pieces bought, it is at the rate of 203·60 in
a million ounces purchased. Besides this, the melter is not charged
with the extra alloy he puts into his silver, and this on an ordinary
average amounts to 1,126 ounces on each million ounces wrought; so
that this work, which, in fact, did yield a loss of 711·853 ounces,
or at the rate of £796 on the million pounds sterling, would, by
the old system of computation, have lost £201. Since, then, it is
thus demonstrable that a difference of £591 arises when it is known
that the whole of the day’s work is weighed into as well as from the
melting-pot, it is but reasonable to believe that a greater difference
may have arisen when it was known by the Mint Office weigher that his
weights were not checked, and, therefore, in weighing ingots to the
melter, he probably just satisfied himself that they were as heavy as
they were charged by the bullion dealer, and allowed the plus weight
which is invariably given by that merchant to go to the melting-house
not charged into the account. It is a fact that if the weigher finds
ingots sent by the bullion dealer lighter than the weight charged,
he sends them back, this practice not being rigidly dependent on
the actual weight of the ingots as a whole; for unless each one is
distinctly heavier than the weight set against it, it is returned, or
the dealer must send silver to make up the required weight. And this
case has more than once arisen; so that in practice, if an ingot be
charged as 1,000 ounces, it must weigh indefinitely beyond that weight
up to 0·50 ounce, and is then received as 1,000 ounces; but if it
weigh in addition 0·60, then it is received as 1,000·50 ounces. These
“drafts,” as they are called, amounted on 402,573 ounces of ingots to
82·11 ounces, or at the rate of 203 per million ounces bought. When
calculating the proportion of metal for melting, it is the custom to
add 1 part of extra alloy to the thousand ounces of silver, and thus
to allow for the loss which takes place by annealing and blanching.
The extra alloy is not charged to the melter, as before said, but is
weighed to him, and thus goes really to reduce his loss; in practice
its proportionate use is increased, for after several re-meltings
of scissel (see page 35) the bars become richer in silver than is
required by the law, and then again extra alloy is added. In the case
of the silver melted in 1858 it must be stated, that if from the loss
exhibited the value of the sweep be deducted, that loss will still
be too high, because the silver had not yet been recovered from the
melting-pots; but with this allowance made, if we divide the total
value of the sweep from 1851 to 1857 by the total sum coined, we shall
arrive at a fair average price of that sweep, which may be taken at
£404 2_s._,[116] thus leaving a loss of £392 on each million pounds
sterling coined. But if, by the old style of calculation, the melter’s
loss be estimated on the weight charged to the melter by the Mint
office, it is £201, and this sum deducted from the average value of the
sweep will give a gain of £203, where it is perfectly certain, from
the extreme care which was taken, that the real loss was £392, which,
minus £54 4_s._ 7_d._, subsequently explained, becomes an absolute
loss, by melting weighed quantities, of £337 15_s._ 5_d._ per million
pounds sterling melted. Allusion has been made to the silver left in
the iron melting-pots: in the case which has been so much dwelt upon
cast-iron pots from Glasgow were used, these absorbing an exceptionally
large amount of silver. As, however, the object is to arrive at a fair
average, it will be wiser to take into consideration the ordinary
wrought-iron pot, which, although it costs more at first, is cheaper in
the long-run, as it will stand from fifty to sixty meltings, whereas
the bulk of the cast-iron pots used in 1858 leaked in the first
melting, and no one of them stood a whole day’s work.
[Footnote 114: See page 134.]
[Footnote 115: See pages 127, 130.]
[Footnote 116: See page 134.]
In treating of the melting of silver, it has been explained that
charcoal is placed in the pot, to prevent the oxidation of the alloy.
This, to a measured extent, it effects, but in the process it becomes
burned, and its ash forms a slag with the oxide of iron of the
pot, and this slag, always floating on the top of the fused silver,
gradually covers the inner surface of the pot as the silver is poured
out, and in so covering the pot secretes globules of silver in the
“pin-holes” of the iron. At the end of the useful existence of the
pot this silver is, or rather should be, obtained. The practice is to
“sweat the pot,” and to fuse in it some common table salt—chloride of
sodium. It would seem that the used-up wrought-iron pots yield by this
process, on an average, 12 ounces of silver. But all the silver is not
obtained at this operation, for the pots stand out of doors, in a yard
to which many persons have free access, for months before they are
treated professionally, and the result of the preliminary sweat which
they undergo is not a source of profit to the Mint.
In 1858 two wrought-iron pots were locked up when their active
period had passed, and these were subsequently treated with great
consideration, with a view to ascertain their capacity for retaining
silver. They yielded under my hands:—
Ounces.
By simple sweating 20·00
By detaching the slag and oxide from the pot
and fusing it with salt 24·70
By separating the remaining silver from the pin-holes
in the pot by means of diluted acid 4·60
------
49·30
In the whole period of that melting I used nine wrought-iron pots, of
which three were entirely used up, and six cast-iron pots, all of which
leaked—some two on one day: it would therefore seem fair to assume
that of these fifteen pots eight were worn out. We may then consider
that had all the eight pots been carefully treated, and each made to
yield its fair proportion of silver, we should have recovered silver at
the rate above shown, or 24·65 ounces from each pot, and this weight,
multiplied by eight, as proposed, will give 197·20 ounces, which, at
5_s._ 6_d._ an ounce, would be worth £54 4_s._ 7_d._, and by this
amount may that loss of £392 be reduced, when the actual loss will be
£337 15_s._ 5_d._, as determined by most carefully-conducted operations
on weighed quantities. This loss, however, is not final, although
absolute, because the sweep was sold for £289 2_s._ 10¾_d._;[117] and,
deducting this, the final loss is £48 12_s._ 6¼_d._ on each million
pounds sterling melted. There can be no doubt but that this is at
least one-third in excess of the loss which should take place; yet,
between 1851-57, it was, after all deductions for sweep, recoveries
from worn-out pots, &c., had been made, no less than £698 13_s._ 3_d._
This excess might be accounted for either as wasteage in the melter’s
department, or as legitimate loss by melting caused by the excess of
oil sent on the scissel; but since the coiners permitted unnecessary
loss to accrue, it will be right to charge this sum to their account,
because, if they received metal free from oil, and returned it to the
melter sustaining too much oil, it is evident that they received from
their men bullion and oil in place of bullion. I therefore add £650
0_s._ 8¾_d._, the difference between £48 12_s._ 6¼_d._ and £698 13_s._
3_d._, to the wasteage previously explained,[118] when that sum will be
raised to £1,297 16_s._ 0¾_d._ on each million of silver coined.
[Footnote 117: See page 134.]
[Footnote 118: See pages 131, 136.]
In all former calculations the value has been determined on the million
coined; but now that we approach the necessary considerations as to
the loss by melting which should absolutely take place, it becomes
necessary to state that, as a rule, 100 parts of silver bars should
produce 57 parts of coined money, and in this proportion must the value
of the sweep be reduced, that we may obtain its value proportioned to
the silver lost by weight in melting. The sweep results, as in the case
of gold, from the grinding of the burnt refuse of the melting-house,
which consists of the sweepings from the floor, partly-used charcoal,
and dirt—“matter in the wrong place,” as Lord Palmerston so aptly
designated it. At the end of the coinage this is sold, and its value
is applied to the reduction of the apparent loss by melting. In the
case now under discussion, we have found that there was an absolute
loss by weight of 711·853 ounces on 893,417·573 ounces of bullion given
to be melted. By proportion, this weight is equal to 796·764 ounces
on each million. The sweep was sold for £289 2_s._ 10¾_d._ for each
million coined; therefore, to obtain the specific amount that should
be deducted by this source from the loss, we must assume that the
coined money was 57 per cent. upon the bullion melted, when £164 16_s._
3½_d._ becomes the value of the sweep belonging to each million melted.
Since this sum is calculated by value, we will convert it into ounces,
which is a simple process; for, as the other sums bear proportion to
pounds sterling, we have but to consider it as ounces, when the sum
we require will be 164·814. To this sum is to be added the amount of
silver due from the melting-pots, as before explained, and which is
220·724 ounces, because it has been assumed that we should obtain 24·65
from each on the average number of pots used in melting, and this,
calculated into the million, is as above. The total of these two sums,
385·538, deducted from 796·764, leaves a final loss of 411·126 ounces
by weight in melting a million ounces of standard silver.
By experiments made with the utmost care, I arrived at the conclusion
that, in melting silver bullion for a complete coinage, the loss by
melting should not exceed £100 on each million sterling melted, and
in this conclusion I am confirmed in a remarkable manner by Colonel
Smith,[119] who, with vast opportunities for careful every-day work and
by absolute weighing, found a loss of 200 in each million for dirt and
oxygen alone, and this he is willing to consider as 250 on each million
of scissel; but he found his loss by melting ingots 30 on the million,
and assuming that the total of a coinage would be half ingots and half
scissel, this would give an average of 140 when he was “convinced that
he was robbed,” and that this was so he proved by compelling the naked
workmen, by means of physic, to disgorge the silver they had swallowed.
He, however, was probably still robbed, for black men rub pieces of
bullion or coins together and secrete the dust obtained by that means
in their hair, and thus abstract metal from the works of the Brazilian
Mining Association, and probably from the mints in India. To such an
extent is robbery by this means carried on that the Association above
referred to causes the head of each person to be washed before he
leaves work, and thus recovers a large amount of gold dust.
[Footnote 119: See Report by Colonel J. T. Smith on Indian Mints from
1841-2 to 1852-3. Printed by authority at Madras, 1855.]
If then, as has been shown, there is a final loss of £411 2_s._ 6_d._
on each million of silver melted, we must now determine that this sum
amounts to £721 5_s._ 5½_d._ on each million pounds sterling _coined_;
and since by coining a loss is sustained equal to £365 15_s._ 10½_d._,
the total final loss is no less than £1,132 7_s._ 11½_d._ per million
pounds sterling of silver coined. Such being the facts ascertained
by the scales, we find that the loss by ACCOUNT is returned at £365
15_s._ 10½_d._ for the coining department, while, at the same period,
the melting-house account shows a gain of £87 13_s._ 3_d._, which,
deducted from the loss of the coining department, gives a final loss
equal to £278 2_s._ 7½_d._, as against, in the former period, a loss
by coining of £1,013 11_s._ 2½_d._, and by melting of £698 13_s._
3_d._, or a total final sum of £1,712 4_s._ 5½_d._ The difference,
then, between these two final sums, or £1,434 1_s._ 10_d._, shows the
actual loss that the Mint authorities submitted to without explanation
on each million of silver coined between June, 1851, and March, 1857.
This sum is exactly 8_s._ 8_d._ for each £100 coined, while the French
contract to coin each £100 for 15_s._, including loss, wages, salaries,
&c. Although, for the sake of accurate demonstration, I have accepted
the facts as stated, it is but fair that I should compare the results
actually obtained with those stated by the usual methods, and then
the contrast will become more apparent; for whereas the proportional
loss by melting is shown to have been on weighed quantities £721
5_s._ 5½_d._, it is a fact that by the usual methods of account, that
of neglecting to charge to the melter the extra weight added to the
ingots by the system of purchase, and omitting the weight of the extra
alloy, this loss becomes reduced to insignificant proportions, for it
was exactly £180 0_s._ 1_d._, and as the sweep sold for £164 16_s._
0½_d._ per million melted, the final loss would be but £15 3_s._
11½_d._ Yet, for the sake of truth, I consider it better to charge to
each department the metal by weight, and that weight should include
every atom, because then, an exceptional loss having taken place,
its significance is at once apparent; whereas, when unknown weights
are placed in the melting-pot, the losses may vary to a considerable
extent, and yet not be detected. By this plan fictitious gain becomes
impossible—apparent loss inevitable; but _that loss is so determinate_
that it can be calculated to a nicety, and any figure obtained beyond
that _calculated_ exhibits one of two facts,—that the melting or
coining, or both, have by too great a degree refined the silver under
operation, and this is demonstrated by the final assays, or UNNECESSARY
WASTE IS AGAIN PERMITTED, but both result from carelessness; therefore
the Mint Master’s duty is perfectly clear. While, then, absolute gain
is impossible, and loss inevitable, it is, perhaps, well to exhibit the
results of Colonel Smith’s experience in the Indian Mints, because that
gentleman states that there can be no loss, and that there must be a
gain. Thus, then, he and I are antagonistic on the plainest possible
point; yet an examination of his statement will show that his gain,
although absolute, is not legitimate, but results from a near approach
to obtaining bullion without paying for it.
It must, then, be explained that in England, and in the Indian Mints,
it is not the custom to assay bullion with a view to the determination
of its actual value, but only to the nearest part of a pennyweight.
Thus, standard silver is composed of 222 parts of silver and 18 of
copper in 240. Assuming that it is the custom to determine the amount
of silver to within half a pennyweight; and that, the assay showed
23 pennyweights and 11 grains, the silver ingot would be reported as
containing 23 pennyweights, and the owner would lose the 11 grains,
whereas it should be the custom to determine absolutely the real value
of the ingot. Now, in India, Colonel Smith found these “unreported
fractions,” when alloyed with copper, amounted to 1,230 parts on each
million purchased, so that if he paid for a million ounces, he received
1,001,230 ounces. Here, then, was part of his profit. In addition to
this gain he made another by the customary turn of the scale,[120] but
he has not told us its amount; yet his final result, from the receipt
of the bullion to its return to the merchants as coined money, is at
the rate of £1,165 gain on each million pounds sterling coined. Now
it is clear that if so large a sum as £1,230 per million is obtained
without purchase from the merchant, either that merchant should himself
saturate those unreported fractions with alloy, or make Colonel Smith’s
mints pay for them. It is asserted that this practice “exists in the
Royal Mint, but not to so large an extent;” yet Colonel Smith states it
to be at the rate of £932 per million coined. If this be the case, the
Mint books should show for its official accounts a vast gain, instead
of, as is the case represented by its purely manufacturing accounts, a
loss. This may possibly be the case, but, so far as my experience goes,
it is against the practice; for the bullion received is invariably
greater in weight than that returned in coined money.
[Footnote 120: See pages 137-138.]
Colonel Smith has determined with great precision that from dirt alone
there is a loss by melting of 1 part in each thousand melted. Before
he paid for bullion he invariably insisted on its being pre-melted,
because the Mint thus saved the loss occasioned by adhering dirt and
extraneous matter; this was wise if the merchants would submit to it,
but it is doubtful if English bullion dealers would first melt dollars
and five-franc pieces before selling them to the Royal Mint.
With bullion thus manipulated I have shown that the Royal Mint also
made a gain, but such gain is not real (see pages 136, 137, 138), for
it is evident that the silver having been bought with the intention of
being converted into standard silver, each grain should be alloyed,
and the whole amount of fine silver being thus alloyed should produce
its calculated weight of standard silver; therefore in each department
every atom should be weighed, and the total weight charged to any
particular operation returned or accounted for, and under these
circumstances no gain can result.
Colonel Smith, however, has determined with great care the following
facts from every-day work, and these are so valuable that it is deemed
wise to quote them. He found, then, that he made an actual gain by
coining from the above circumstances of 1,230 ounces on each million
ounces of rupees produced as coin. In the blanching of the blanks that
were used for the making of that coined money the loss by blanching was
at the rate of 966 ounces per million blanched, and from the acid used
in blanching he obtained 726 ounces of metallic copper, so that of the
966 ounces which disappeared only 240 ounces were a real loss, which
resulted from oxygen and dirt. Here, then, are reliable figures; and,
as he sold his sweep for a sum equal to 140 ounces of silver for each
million ounces coined, it is clear that his real loss was just 826 on
each million ounces coined. It must be seen that although the copper
was recovered, it should in these calculations be neglected, because
in the Royal Mint it is not in practice deemed wise (nor, indeed, is
it the every-day custom in India) to separate this copper; therefore
we will consider the whole matter lost to the Mint. Since, then, he
has demonstrated that he received in his clean ingots more silver by
1,230 ounces than he paid for, it is only necessary to add this sum
to the weight he charges to himself, which will then be 1,001,230
ounces; in manipulating this total weight he shows that he lost 554
ounces by melting and 826 ounces by blanching, or a total loss of
£1,380 per million pounds sterling. This, compared with the practice
in the Royal Mint, shows, as Colonel Smith says, that the Mints of
India do not obtain their legitimate amount of profit; and he, in
his own words, attributes the loss to what he considers its only fit
cause—“peculation.” For even in the Royal Mint—ill-managed institution
that it is—the average annual loss, taken by the system of weighing,
is only £721 5_s._ 5½_d._ Still, as showing the fluctuations, it is
curious to observe that in the last period given, viz., from March to
June, 1861, the recorded loss by melting is £91 0_s._ 8_d._, while that
by coining is £1,949 9_s._ 6_d._,[121] or a final loss of no less than
£2,040 10_s._ 2_d._
[Footnote 121: See pages 132-134.]
Having given the returns relating to gold ordered by the House of
Lords, I also give those exhibiting similar details for silver, and
place that relating to coining on page 133, while that demonstrating
the facts as regards melting will be found on page 135.
Mr. Fremantle assures us in his Report that “the ‘waste’ shown to have
existed of late years has not been excessive,” while Mr. Roberts tells
us, “The apparent loss on silver melting is two grains on the troy
pound, or 0·346 per mille, much of the metal being recoverable from
sweep.” 0·346 per mille is 346 per million, so we will take these two
statements into consideration as regards the returns now to be noticed.
I propose to submit the following abstract from the return on page 135,
and thus bring into view _facts_ recorded by the Mint Officials, that
they may be contrasted with _opinions_ expressed by those gentlemen,
and for this purpose I deduct the value of the sweep from that of
the waste, and thus arrive at the amount of the latter, and as “of
late years” may fairly be taken to express the five last past, I will
operate on those periods only.
+---------------+-------+------------------+------+----------------+
|Value of Waste | |Value of Sweep per| | Final Loss by |
|per £1,000,000.| | £1,000,000. | | Melting |
| | | | | Silver. |
+---------------| |------------------| |----------------|
| |Deduct | | The | |
| £ _s. d._ | Value | £ _s. d._ |Result| £ _s. d._ |
| 782 17 4 | of | 522 1 10 | is a | 260 15 6 |
| 1,752 18 2 |Sweep, | 211 12 9 | | 1,541 5 5 |
| 1,680 9 11 | | Nil. | | 1,680 9 11 |
| 1,587 14 9 | | 1,313 11 3 | | 274 3 6 |
| 1,002 17 6 | | 188 18 2 | | 813 19 4 |
+---------------+-------+------------------+------+----------------+
| Total Loss divided by 5 years 4,570 13 8 |
| ----------------+
| Gives the Average Loss by Melting Silver 916 2 8¾ |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
In other words, the loss which actually accrues is practically three
times as great as Mr. Roberts finds necessary, and yet Mr. Fremantle
approvingly says _it is not excessive_. I should advise Mr. Roberts
to return to the use of wrought-iron pots and pay proper attention to
the melting, FOR I HAVE PROVED that £100 on a million sterling is as
much waste as should LEGITIMATELY arise, and Colonel Smith confirms my
determinations, as will be seen at pages 140-141. If these officers
will pay sufficient attention to their business, they need not fear the
variations of assay pointed out by LEVOL. These arise, it is true, but
to an imperceptible extent only when melting is properly conducted,
as I proved to the entire satisfaction of Mr. Graham in August, 1858,
and who, in consequence, relinquished his intention of adopting the
then proposed mode of taking silver for assay from the fluid metal by
ladles. It is not by hunting hopeless hobbies that losses are to be
stopped, nor will the silver be found in the chimneys—if so, some of
it should be in those of the present Mint. Will Mr. Fremantle or Mr.
Roberts state what has become of £916 worth of silver from each million
coined in the past five years? The actual value lost is £4,580 14_s._
6_d._, sufficient to make four immense ingots, which would surely stop
the draught of any chimney in the Mint.
As this return has yielded matter for comment, I will refer briefly to
that which exhibits the additional loss by coining, and shown on page
133, the following abstract for the past five years will suffice.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Value of | | Value of | | Final Loss |
| Waste per | | Sweep per | | by Coining |
| £1,000,000. | | £1,000,000. | | Silver. |
+-------------| |--------------| |------------------|
| £ _s. d._ | | £ _s. d._ | The | £ _s. d._ |
| 568 0 9 | Deduct | 28 15 7 | | 539 5 2 |
| 481 19 4 | Value | 31 16 9 | Result | 450 2 7 |
| 512 8 8 | of | Nil. | | 512 8 8 |
| 492 16 11 | Sweep, | 458 7 8 | is a | 34 9 3 |
| 469 16 2 | | Nil. | | 469 16 2 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Total Loss divided by 5 years 2,006 1 10 |
| -----------------+
| Gives the Average Loss by Coining Silver 401 4 4¼ |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Whereas then the loss from 1851 to 1857 averaged, as I have shown on
page 131, £1,013 11_s._ 2¼_d._, and fell under my management in the
period between 1857 and 1860 to £365 15_s._ 10½_d._, it has now again
risen to £401 4_s._ 4_d._—a steady increase at the rate of 10 per
cent., which seems unreasonable.
A rigid Parliamentary inquiry into the circumstances of the Mint is
as great a necessity at this time as it was shown to be in 1856; and
such an inquiry might demonstrate not only a want of ability, but also
whether all the officers are satisfied; whether there be not great
heart-burnings, tending to a not very complacent style of performing
their duty.
I quote the following from Hansard’s Debates, as having occurred in the
House of Lords, to show that the Government steadily resists inquiry
into the affairs of the Mint; yet I hope the time will arrive when
Parliament will assert its right and induce Ministers to yield an
inquiry, however much “Mr. Lowe may deprecate it.” On the 22nd March,
1870,
“LORD KINNAIRD said: I stated the other night
that great robberies have notoriously taken place, and
I maintain that these peculations and robberies still
continue. If I had an opportunity before a Committee, I
could prove this, but the returns which I have obtained
will show the correctness of what I am stating. I was not
surprised the other evening at a particular return being
refused, for the officials of the Mint naturally dislike
further exposure; but the returns before us clearly show
that under the term ‘waste,’ which should rather be
‘stolen,’ large sums are lost in coinage. There ought to
be no loss in coinage if the Mint was properly conducted.
There might, indeed, be a small loss of £100 on the million
in the melting department; but in the coining there should
be a gain of at least £59, making the net loss £41. Instead
of this, however, there was a loss, as those returns show,
of £460 on every million coined. What becomes of that sum?
It must go into some one’s pocket, and in point of fact
it is abstracted. Look, too, at the large sums which are
paid to the Bank of England for loss every time there is a
coinage; at one time there was a loss of £1,132 on every
million for loss of gold abstracted and not returned in
coinage. From 1851 to 1857 there was a loss; in the next
two years there was a gain; the next two years there was
a loss and the following year there was a gain, and after
that losses. Now why should not the gain continue? Why
was there a gain? Because the men were properly looked
after, and could not abstract the precious metal.... I
hope your Lordships will agree to refer this bill to a
Select Committee, or will hereafter agree to an independent
inquiry into the Mint, conducted by other gentlemen than
the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Private Secretary and the
Deputy Master.... I move that the Bill be referred to a
Select Committee.”