Chapter IX: Part 9

That the cost of coining may be always the same, let there be thirty-six efficient workmen and twelve boys, and let these be paid for wages in the following manner:—To each man £1 a week, whether at work or not, and to boys a sum beginning at 14_s._ per week, to be increased 1_s._ per week for each additional year of service, until the age of twenty be reached, when they should receive the same sum of £1 as is paid to the men, but the “rating as men” should be stopped till a vacancy occurs, that the number of men, inclusive of melters, shall not exceed thirty-six, as then no injustice will be done the men, and the boys are sufficiently provided for to enable them to wait. When, however, work is in progress I would pay for piece-work as follows; for—

£
Sovereigns 0·806 per 100 lbs. troy of coined money.
Half Sovereigns 1·571 ” ”
Florins 0·555 ” ”
Shillings 0·800 ” ”
Sixpences 1·348 ” ”
Threepences 2·330 ” ”
Bronze pence 7·500 per ton of coined money.
” halfpence 10·000 ” ”
” farthings 15·000 ” ”

This sum should be divided by a simple system equally amongst the workpeople, so that men should take one whole share, boys who have served more than three years and a half two-thirds of a share, and boys of less service than three years and a half one-third of a share. When the fair share of piece-work exceeds the permanent amount of fixed wages, that sum should be deducted from the total sum allotted to each, so that the permanent wages would become a fixed charge secured on the piece-work to be performed. This being performed intelligently, each workman would participate in the benefit, therefore each would do his best; whereas no increase can take place in the cost of production, for any carelessness in the various operations simply causing so much waste labour, would bring no remuneration, and the wages would thus bear proportion to the anxiety incurred and be equalized.

To pursue, then, this proposition further, it will be convenient to assume that 420,600 sovereigns are coined per week, this being a fair average amount to take if the complete coinage be conceived to be 6,000,000 of finished coin. In such a case fourteen weeks would be required to effect the operation, and its total cost will stand thus:—

£
For assays by out-door assayers 998·4
” wages to workmen 1,035·0
” salaries and contingent expenses 2,843·0
” loss of metal by coining 1,200·0
--------
£6,076·4

In estimating salaries and contingent expenses the estimates of 1857 have been taken, because the pressure for bronze has passed away, and the establishment has, it is supposed, gone back to its then dimensions. At that period it was usual to estimate the cost of coining gold, inclusive of assaying, at the rate of one-sixth per cent. In the above calculations the cost of assaying is included, as well as the salaries and contingent expenses, from which, however, has been deducted the fixed wages paid to the workpeople for fourteen weeks, because they are supposed to have been earned as piece-work.

Allowance at the extravagant rate of £200 per million coined is also made for loss of metal by coining, so that under this proposition the total cost of producing six millions of coined gold becomes £6,076·40. This must be the absolute sum, for the cost of dies, police, &c., is included in the amount for salaries and contingent expenses; it therefore follows that each £100 would cost for manufacture £0.101273, or about 2_s._ 0¼_d._ Here, then, are exhibited the grounds on which the calculations are based, and unless there are errors on the face of the figures it is demonstrated that the total cost of coining, even with an extravagant estimate, may be reduced to about one-tenth of one per cent. Why, then, should a profit of nine-tenths of one per cent. be desired or granted? If an ultimate decision should be formed to charge £1 for each thousand sovereigns coined, a stimulus will be given to the Mint authorities to investigate the cause of their losses, the means whereby these may be stopped, and to how great an extent useless officers may be parted with, thus to make a minute but legitimate saving out of the allowance, for there is no substantial reason why we should coin free of charge; nor, on the other hand, is it right that the cost of that operation should fall on the tax-payer, while a just rate for mintage would, unless under very exceptional circumstances, protect the coinage from illegitimate conversion into bullion, for it must be remembered that there is already in reality a tax of 1½_d._ per ounce for the conversion of bullion into coin, paid by the _importer_ to the Bank of England, and the charge for mintage will be in addition to that tax.

A very strong reason against an exorbitant charge may be found in the fact that the French Mint is content to fix its rate at about 6 francs 70 centimes for each kilogramme of their standard gold, which is coined into pieces of the value of 3,100 francs, or about 0·216129 per cent., say 4_s._ 3¾_d._ for each £100 coined, and this under a system of contract which gives a profit to the contractors, so that it becomes clear, coining is practically done AT A FIXED RATE IN FRANCE, that rate being above the actual cost of our coinage in 1857, but below the charge proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by six-tenths of one per cent., irrespective of the deduction of 1½_d._ per ounce made at the Bank when gold is bought.[103] This being the case, it is reasonable to suppose that all the gold for coining will go to France; whereas, if it be desired to convert the coin of France into _our proposed debased coinage_, each £1,000 so converted will produce but £990·275, because the 1½_d._ per ounce is equal to 0·16051 per cent., and to this tax is added 0·81119 per cent. by the deduction of the one grain proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it must be understood that the coined money of France will still be treated as bullion. Perhaps a still plainer view of the case may be obtained, if it be assumed that a man has a million pounds’ worth of gold, which, for cheapness’ sake, he gets coined in France, where he will pay £2,161·29 for coining it. Circumstances, however, make it desirable that this million in French gold coins should be converted into coin of the British standard as coined at the Royal Mint, where the owner will find that, for the conversion of his bullion, he has to submit to a deduction equal in value to £9,725, which, added to the sum charged in France for the first coining, makes a total of £11,886·29. How many persons will be willing to sacrifice such a sum for the convenience of others? The result must be that, unless under the most exceptional circumstances, no gold except for currency can be coined in England, it will inevitably be sent to France, because coined gold will there always be 0·81119 per cent. more valuable than in England.

[Footnote 103: Sec pages 3, 127.]

In discussions recently earned on in the newspapers, the liability of gold coin to be sifted of its pieces which are heavier than the theoretical standard has been a good deal dwelt upon; but there is one view which, perhaps, has not occurred to those who are unacquainted with the manufacturing details. It is true, then, that the standard weight of a sovereign deduced from its proportional weight to 20 lbs. troy is 123·274478 grains, and that this piece may vary so far in weight as to be either too light or too heavy by no less than 0·2000 grain, and yet be a perfectly legal tender. With careful manufacture the coins issued should be so apportioned that there shall be half the number on the light and the other half on the heavy side of the standard weight.[104] By referring to the papers furnished for the guidance of the jury at the trial of the pyx it will be found that the gold coins reported on at the last two trials were on the light side of the theoretical weight, for those submitted to trial in 1861 were by number 24,655,335 pieces, and weighed only an equivalent to 24,654,849 sovereigns, consequently the Bank of England received exactly £486 more in coined moneys than their bullion was worth; therefore this was a profit to that Institution. And on the occasion of the trial which took place in 1866 there were by number 34,927,188 pieces, which weighed only an equivalent to 34,927,008 sovereigns, so that the Bank gained exactly £180. These facts demonstrate the fairness with which the Mint coins and issues its coined moneys, not in accordance with the letter, but with the spirit of the law which governs its actions; yet the evidence thus given is to the effect that the bulk of the coins are on the light side. The current weight of the sovereign, as authorised by Act of Parliament 33 Vict., cap. 10, and published in the _London Gazette_, 12th August, 1870, is 122·50 grains, and below this weight the Bank of England will not receive it in payment of twenty shillings; but the half-sovereign, being a coin of convenience, is allowed to circulate till its weight, has fallen to 61·125 grains, below which it is not received at the Bank in liquidation of a debt of ten shillings. Thus, then, while a sovereign may be legally coined so that its weight may be either 123·474478 grains or 123·074478 grains, it is still permitted to circulate, and is a legal tender at the current weight of 122·50 grains, or a difference of 0·574478 grain below the minimum weight permitted by the New Coinage Act for its issue from the Mint. If, as will be found to be the case on an average of years, the rejected coins by weight amount to 16 per cent. when the remedy is 0·20 grain, and to 9 per cent. when the remedy is 0·25 grain, it is evident that the chance of obtaining profit by picking coins is not greater than 3·5 per cent., because the difference between a fifth and a quarter of a grain makes an increase of 7 per cent., and of these rejected pieces rather less than half are on the heavy side, because, as has been shown, the whole deliveries to the Bank of England are on an average light pieces; therefore it will be perfectly safe to consider that each hundred sovereigns contain at the extreme three coins which may be two-tenths of a grain heavier than the standard weight of 123·274478 grains; but it is by no means certain that any hundred pieces would contain one single coin heavy by this amount even if the remedy were made to be 0·25 grain, because the automaton balances of Mr. Cotton are so accurate as never to permit the issue of pieces beyond the limits assigned, and any piece which at its passage through the machine equalled the maximum weight would be, and is, inevitably reduced—infinitesimally, if you will—in weight, by abrasion against other pieces in the act of falling, as well as when put into its bag previously to going to the Bank of England. When the remedy was 0·30 grain the case was different, but it may now be assumed that it is impossible for any one to make profit by selecting heavy pieces,—this irrespective of the fact that the bankers find it worth their while to select heavy pieces for transmission to the Bank of England, because they then obtain the coins which are of current weight, yet not intrinsically worth twenty shillings;—whereas the recent public discussion makes it appear that it is worth the risk to certain unknown individuals in Brussels to buy our newly-coined sovereigns, pick from them such as exceed 123·274 grains, and melt them into ingots for sale as bullion, and return to us the light pieces. The only modes by which it pays such persons to buy new sovereigns for the purpose of such gain is to shake them together in canvas bags, or to submit them to the electrotype process—as is often done by chemical students—and by these means obtain from each a specific amount of gold, sending the sweated coins into circulation, having reduced each of them to the lowest current weight by a very short rough usage. It is different when coins, instead of being individually weighed, are simply _pounded_, that is, weighed _en masse_, just to determine that a certain number are in a given weight: in such circumstances many coins most unequable may be issued, as was the case when silver coins were thus treated in the Royal Mint in August, 1864, against all sound principles. At that period the then Master, under false notions of economy,[105] determined not to weigh individual pieces of silver money, because silver coins were mere tokens, but when coins bearing the device of FLORINS, and ranging in intrinsic value from 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._ 9_d._ irrespective of extrinsic worth, were returned to the Mint, this economy was soon abandoned.

[Footnote 104: See pages 39, 73.]

[Footnote 105: See page 71.]

I have dwelt at considerable length upon the losses incurred by the coining of gold; such losses I now find are defended by high authorities, but I hope some effort may be produced by my words, yet not mine only, for I will quote those used by Mr. Graham in his letter to the Treasury[106]:—

[Footnote 106: See page 178.]

“This gives in a million coined a net loss of £257 7_s._ 0¾_d._;
... but after making allowance for the circumstances just stated,
the loss of gold in melting remains higher, in my opinion, than it
ought to be; and it will, I trust, be found to admit of some
further reduction in future years.

“A correct estimate of the whole waste in coining is obtained by
combining the returns of the two departments:—

£ _s. d._
Loss of melting department 257 7 0¾ per million.
Surplus of coining department 50 13 0 ”
-----------
Difference 206 14 0¾ ”

It thus appears that in 1858-59 the net loss in minting £1,000,000
of gold was £206 14_s._ 0¾_d._’

He then proceeds to show that “the loss on the gold coinage for the (_then_) last three years was £172 8_s._ 11½_d._,” yet Mr. Fremantle’s return to the House of Lords No. 30, 1870, shows a loss of £464 as the average in the last three years, and he in “European Mints,” uses these significant words: “The waste shown to have existed of late years in the English Mint has not been excessive.”

I reproduce these words because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted contracts for coinages for foreign countries, and I propose to study the matter in relation to his probable profit.

With such losses accruing as are here exhibited, it appears to be a step worthy only the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to advertise for coinage contracts for foreign countries. At what price will they be granted to him? It is perfectly clear that, to make a profit, he must charge more than it will cost, so it will be well to examine his chance of success. We may assume that it will cost him 2_s._ 6_d._ to coin £100 in sovereigns as the expenses of salaries, wages, and loss; in addition to these he will find it necessary to pack his coined money for exportation, whither he must pay carriage, insurance, &c. Should he feel that he need not charge for wear and tear of machinery, he must still remember that it will require renewal at intervals, and every expense must be included in a total sum of 4_s._ 3¾_d._, or the foreign contractors (whom he was sanguine enough to suppose would give him information) will be sure to beat him in the tender for the contract. As to silver, it is already certain that his loss by coining would alone make any profit hopeless even to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who knows how to get five quarters’ taxes in one year. Lord Kinnaird has shown that the Mint loses by manufacturing silver coin, by sheer loss of metal, at the rate of 3_s._ 9¾_d._ for each £100 coined (see page 146), and in addition to this tax he has to pay 1_s._ 9_d._ for each 1,000 coins manufactured for labour, besides the contingent expenses, including packing, insurance, &c. All expenses must come within 15_s._ for each £100, because this is the sum at which the foreign contractors gladly accept coinages. While saying thus much, it has been necessary to reserve facts which would be indispensable to a contractor, because such information should be rendered to a contractor only on terms such as another would be willing to offer for it, and to publish it here would be hardly fair to those whose business it is to live by coining.

The Royal Mint, suffering thus from faults which its officials profess themselves unable to remedy, it seems an eccentric proceeding that while the Government Institution bears good-naturedly all the loss, the Bank of England should obtain all the profit, “as a set-off against the stock of bullion it is compelled to keep.” It is to be remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was “necessary to expedite the coining of gold, because it bears interest while under coinage,” thus exhibiting an absence of knowledge, for the Mint pays no interest. It is no concern of the Bank whether its bullion be reserved as ingots or coin, because it is compelled by Act of Parliament to keep a specified amount to meet the excess issue of its notes, and this circumstance alone enables the Bank of England to coin gold without loss of interest—gold at the Mint is still considered as reserved by the Bank. So far, indeed, from the Bank losing money by importing gold for coming, it makes a clear profit, as is shown by the following figures—this even under its new system of assay—

BANK OF ENGLAND PROFIT.

By the charge of 1½_d._ on each ounce of gold £1605·100
By the system of absorbing assay fractions 166·666
By the turn of the scale on purchase 71·339
---------
On each million coined £1843·105

Nor is this all; for the Bank exacts from the Mint the last ounce or fraction of an ounce of all it sends, and besides receives gold invariably coined on the light side of the standard, to the average extent of £11·50, and makes an additional profit by the turn of the scale, which gives them from the Mint £75 on each million, so that their total gain comes to be £1,929 12_s._ on each million sent to the Mint for coining, that Department good-naturedly finding alloy into the bargain. That I do not exceed the facts of the case would seem to be conclusively proved by Messrs C. W. Fremantle and C. Rivers Wilson, for those gentlemen in their Reports state the amount at £3,458, and affirm (see Reports on the Mint, page 4) that on £5,000,000 the Mint would make a profit of £8,000. How they reconcile their figures I do not know, for by their own showing it should be £17,290. They had better accept my figures, which would produce a profit of £9,648 on the same amount.

I feel that I have produced sufficient evidence to oblige me to withdraw the opinion I have hitherto held, and which I thus expressed—

“If, as I can clearly show, the Mint can still be
advantageously retained under Government control, it would
appear to be a pity to place the coinage in the hands of
contractors, for it is evident that they must be paid such
a price as will yield them a profit, and this sum had
better be saved to the nation.”

On the contrary, I now think it is the duty of the Government TO AT ONCE COIN BY CONTRACT, as the cost of such process will be definite, whereas it is now illimitable. Instead of the tax-payers paying for New Mint buildings, _which are not required_, contractors would gladly buy the present Mint just as it stands, and in three years amass colossal fortunes. If Mr. Lowe were to hand over the coinage of gold, silver, and bronze—by which the Government now loses so large a sum—for one year, with proper security, to an unofficial person, who should pay all the costs and reap all the profit, I am sure the annual vote for the expenses of the Mint and coinage may be remitted and the work will be better performed. At a period when the Government has seen fit to send Commissioners to European Mints to learn the mystery of coining, it seems a perversion of reason to adopt the opinions of those learners, and upon their recommendations build new Mint premises. I am aware that it is thought by the sanguine that the old Mint site will sell for a vast sum, which will pay for the new site; but is it in the experience of the public that such transfers are made without loss? Indeed the probability of vast expense is so great that it becomes a settled question. The Commissioners—the chief of whom says,

“... While I must not be understood to be in a position to
offer positive recommendations on many points, and more
especially as regards machinery, while the question as to
the future site of the Mint is still pending, yet I trust
that I have shown the importance of the information which
we have acquired, and the possibility of applying it with
advantage to many Mint arrangements in this country”—

recommend machinery and experiments with which two of their number are admittedly unacquainted, and their Reports show throughout that they are really writing upon subjects to which their minds have not yet become accustomed, and which consequently they cannot fully appreciate. Instead, therefore, of the Legislature building new premises on the advice of such officers, it will surely be wise to give the contract system a fair trial, say for a year, in accordance with the suggestion of Lord Kinnaird. It is not the premises, it is not the machinery, it is not the workpeople, but the utter want of experience in the chief officers that gives rise to the state of muddle and dissatisfaction amongst the officials, and causes loss of bullion, which does not go into the chimney, and other expenses which will not bear the light of day.

Mr. Fremantle recommends new premises, on the ground that such should be built expressly for Mint purposes. The present Mint was so built, and is now capable, with very limited expenses, of adaptation. It would be cheaper to burn it down and rebuild the operative departments, than to remove it to another site, where the same want of experience will surely give rise to precisely similar evidences of mismanagement as now exist. It is because the Government prefers to put the wrong man in the wrong place—square men in round holes—that it is thought necessary to transfer the Mint, really that those gentlemen may be nearer their own comfortable homes and friends.

The East End of London is recognised as a disagreeable part to dwell in; but the Mint is essentially a manufactory, and, as such, is not fitted for the westerly parts of the metropolis, and those who object to the neighbourhood should relinquish their offices. Would it be tolerated, if proposed, to remove the Enfield factory to the Thames Embankment, so that it “should be more immediately associated with the Treasury offices?” In its present site the Mint has supplied the coinage, and could issue multiples of its past productions; economy being the order of the day, why incur unnecessary expense?

In the meantime, the old rule holds good—a bad workman complains of his tools; and those who demonstrate their inability to conduct the Mint in such manner as to derive the revenue which they admit should accrue and which they profess themselves unable to secure, should gracefully assent to place the matter in the hands of contractors till the Government shall see fit to put the department in the charge of some person who will practically develope the truth, instead of hunting in the chambers of the chimneys for that which they must know full well has left the Mint by another means.

The Commissioners seem to have gone out of their way to show their want of knowledge on vital points in the manufacture of money. Thus Mr. Fremantle recommends the substitution of graphite for iron pots in silver melting, on the authority of Mr. Roberts, whose experience is expressed in these words—“Graphite crucibles permit of the total contents being poured into moulds, and this enables the accounts to be adjusted daily.” Truly the accounts may be _adjusted_ daily; but most commercial people object to _adjustment_, as that process commonly leads to a minus account, and frequently an employment of the detective police. To balance an account is a very different proceeding; but is it true that graphite crucibles expedite the process? No, it is not true, as witnessed by the table on page 102, where it will be seen that the amount of gold which is _not “poured into the moulds”_ varies from £1,132 down to £161, and has, at the last return, risen steadily to £461, although the gold referred to was MELTED IN GRAPHITE CRUCIBLES. At a later period I will show these facts in greater detail.[107]

So much interest does not attach to the coining of silver as to the coining of gold; yet, as the amount of profit to be made by this coinage depends on the length of time which silver coins can be kept in circulation, it is necessary to consider whether the Royal Mint has at any time made, or does now make, so much profit as it should, and whether the coins when made are so manufactured as to be fit in the highest degree to bear the wear and tear to which it is intended that they shall be submitted. These questions, although they may appear to be of little interest, are really important, because the Mint, if properly managed, should, by its silver coinage, pay all its expenses, and by its bronze coinage, if the latter be discreetly conducted, render an actual profit to the Government. I propose presently[108] to touch upon the bronze coinage, when inquiry will demonstrate that this is conducted in such a manner as that a large per-centage of the fair profit is sacrificed annually.

[Footnote 107: See page 136.]

[Footnote 108: See page 162.]

In those countries where silver is legally the standard of value the coins contain the amount of silver which is equivalent to a fixed sum of gold, and in all such cases, if silver should happen to rise in price, bullion merchants buy large quantities of new silver _coins_ and export them, because these remain at a fixed price, although all other silver has risen in value. In England this contingency is avoided by giving to coined silver an _extrinsic value_; that is to say, by raising silver whose natural market price varies[109] between 5_s._ per ounce and 5_s._ 2_d._ per ounce to an artificial value of 5_s._ 6_d._ per ounce when it is coined into money. It is the practice of the Mint to buy silver only when it is at its lowest market price, and then in parcels of the value of £50,000. Upon an average of years it is found that the profit thus accruing[110] should amount to about 8 per cent. Even with perfect management the whole of this 8 per cent. would not be secured, because all worn and light silver culled from circulation is returned to the Mint by the Bank of England for recoinage into new money, piece for piece, and many of the worn[111] pieces represent only half their original extrinsic value. What we call a shilling is intrinsically worth, when coined, about 10¾_d._, but when it is culled from circulation it is often worth only 6_d._, therefore a loss of 4¾_d._ is incurred by re-coining it, quite independently of the labour and loss of metal. It should, however, be stated that the Mint makes a small profit by receiving the unreported fractions as well as the excess of weight[112] invariably given when ingots are purchased. In France the five-franc piece is coined so that it contains its intrinsic value, the importer paying 75 centimes for each 100 francs in value. Since this sum yields a profit to the contractor, we may be certain that it covers every possible expense of production. If this cost be proportioned to our money, it will appear to be at the rate of 15_s._ for each £100. Let us see, then, if the silver coinage of Great Britain is produced at so cheap a rate as is that of France, and this shall be determined by discussing the unnecessary losses which are permitted, in a similar manner to, but less elaborately than, that adopted for the gold coinage. The tables which will be exhibited are those given me by the late Master of the Mint, under precisely the same circumstances as described when speaking of the tables relating to gold. I will then briefly treat of these losses as they were, as they are, and as they should be. Those who are habituated to the working of gold feel, when that work ceases, a kind of relief, which is perhaps natural if the relative value be considered. The Mint, then, suddenly changes from this metal to one of just about a fourteenth of its value, for to the Mint people gold at £3 17_s._ 10½_d._ is as 14·16 is to 1 of silver, which they view as of a value of 5_s._ 6_d._ per ounce; again, it is more bulky and unmanageable. These causes are to be admitted to their full share of importance, but should not induce us to accept them in explanation of facts which are not otherwise reasonable, and such seems to be the case with silver in the Royal Mint. Mr. Seyd, in his admirable work on Bullion and Exchanges, at page 560 says, “We should like to see a return moved for in Parliament of the wasteage of gold at the British Mint from 1850 to the present year; it might show whether there has not been at certain periods of the management of the operative department much less loss than at others, and whether there has not been occasionally a small gain even, as there certainly ought to be with proper management.” Mr. Seyd has shown himself a master of the subject he has undertaken, and perhaps the facts stated in the earlier pages of this book may reply to some of his questions. He then proceeds to say, “A return of the wasteage of silver might also prove interesting, as well as an account of the imperfect work returned to the melting-pot during each year.” When an author who has so successfully studied a subject invites such information, one can but feel that it is wise to give some details. I propose, however, to give only such facts as will bring us up to the year 1861, because the following years vary but little, and if I were to give another eight years it would require more space than it is deemed wise to occupy.

[Footnote 109: See page 152.]

[Footnote 110: See pages 146, 152.]

[Footnote 111: See pages 65-67, 152, 155, 156.]

[Footnote 112: See pages 127, 137-138.]

In the following tabular statements will be found every particular relating to silver arranged in a precisely similar manner to the facts regarding gold, and it is hoped that they are given with sufficient clearness to render unnecessary a lengthy explanation. I have given other details at pages 136-142.

In explaining the table on page 132 it should be noted that the £1,315 9_s._ 4_d._, given as the value of the loss per million in 1852-53, is not the true value, for, as in the case of gold, the account of the loss was not kept. The loss of those years is, therefore, reduced by sharing it with the coined money of the financial years, June, 1851, to March, 1853; if this sum be, as it should be, excluded, the loss will be £1,695 17_s._ 6½_d._ The same allowance must be made for the melting-house account in the table on page 134, when that sum will become £1,375 12_s._ 4¾_d._ instead of £1,067 0_s._ 11¼_d._ It is deemed fair to reduce this loss as far as possible; therefore the whole sum coined between June, 1851, and March, 1853, has been made to bear the one loss of these 1845·449 ounces. The same test being applied to these tables as was applied to that relating to gold,[113] it will be found that the average loss by coining silver between June, 1851, and March, 1857, was £1,013 11_s._ 2¼_d._, whereas in the next period, between April, 1857, and March, 1860, it fell to £365 15_s._ 10½_d._ This reduction then shows that the former loss, taken at its lowest, gives evidence of _unnecessary_ wasteage to the extent of £647 15_s._ 4_d._ on each million coined; but this sum is not that shown by the Mint books, for, as above stated, it is below the truth. Great, then, as were the amounts missed, we shall find them far greater if the state of the melting-house be considered, and to do this is necessary, because it was asserted that the loss was arrested in the coining department by sending more oil and dirt to the melting-house. Let us then see how this stands in regard to the truth, for while in the period 1851 to 1857 the oil literally _dropped from the scissel and drained through the trucks on to the floor_, in the latter period the trucks were not soiled, and the use of oil in the rolling room was rigidly prohibited, while in the drag room only so much as was required to lubricate the fillets at the drag bench was permitted to be used, and this was as far as possible removed by careful wiping with cotton waste. It is also a fact that whereas there had been an HABITUAL LOSS in the rolling and drag rooms when oil was used very largely, there was now a GAIN IN BOTH ROOMS; in the former to the extent of one in ten thousand ounces wrought, and in the latter to the extent of two in ten thousand. These facts must be of importance while considering the following statement (see page 134).

[Footnote 113: See page 88.]

STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF SILVER COINED AND OF THE LOSS ATTENDING IT IN THE COINING DEPARTMENT.

+--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+
| Date—Financial Year. | Weight of | Value of Coinage. |
| | Coinage. | |
| | | |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s. d._ |
| June 1851 to March 1852 | 314689·050 | 86,539 9 9¼ |
| April 1852 to March 1853 | 1088196·550 | 299,254 1 0¼ |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 2135071·750 | 587,144 14 7½ |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 501459·800 | 137,901 8 10¾ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 1138355·000 | 313,047 12 6 |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1792800·000 | 493,020 0 0 |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 1420560·000 | 390,654 0 0 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 1449360·000 | 398,574 0 0 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 2052720·000 | 564,498 0 0 |
| March 1861 to June 1861 | 650160·000 | 178,794 0 0 |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------------+
+--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Date—Financial Year. | Amount of Loss | Value of the Silver |
| | by Coining. | Lost. |
| | | |
+--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s. d._ |
| June 1851 to March 1852 | | |
| April 1852 to March 1853 | 1845·449 | 507 9 11½ |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 2943·025 | 809 6 7½ |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 657·362 | 180 15 5¾ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 1632·957 | 449 1 3¼ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 2191·367 | 602 12 6¼ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 910·264 | 250 6 5½ |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 834·679 | 232 0 2¾ |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 898·837 | 247 3 7¼ |
| March 1861 to June 1861 | 1357·375 | 373 5 5½ |
+--------------------------+----------------+---------------------+
+--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
| Date—Financial Year. | Value of |Lost Silver | Sweep |
| |Sweep Sold.|per Million | per Million |
| | | Coined. | Coined. |
+--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
| | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._ |
| June 1851 to March 1852 | 31 12 8 | | |
| April 1852 to March 1853 | 90 4 10½ |1,315 9 4 | 315 18 3 |
| ” 1853 ” 1854 |160 12 4 |1,378 8 4¾ | 273 11 1¼ |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 69 19 2¼ |1,310 17 11 | 507 6 3¼ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 |104 5 7½ |1,434 9 9¼ | 333 3 3¾ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 |149 10 9¼ |1,223 6 3¾ | 303 6 2¾ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 98 1 10 | 640 15 6¾ | 251 1 11 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 |125 8 4 | 582 2 1 | 314 13 3¼ |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 10 18 3 | 437 17 6¼ | 19 6 7¼ |
| March 1861 to June 1861 | 24 14 4½ |2,087 14 6¼ | 138 5 0½ |
+--------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+

To obtain the true amount of loss or waste, deduct the value of the
sweep from the value of the silver lost.

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

COINING DEPARTMENT.

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 Coinage.|Amount of|
| | 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 | 1845·450|
+-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
| ” 1853 ” 1854 |2134891·750| 587,095 4 8 | 2943·025|
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 501459·800| 137,901 8 11 | 657·362|
| ” 1855 ” 1856 |1138355·000| 313,047 12 6 | 1632·957|
| ” 1856 ” 1857 |1792800·000| 493,020 0 0 | 2191·367|
| ” 1857 ” 1858 |1420560·000| 390,654 0 0 | 910·264|
| ” 1858 ” 1859 |1449360·000| 398,574 0 0 | 843·679|
| ” 1859 ” 1860 |2052720·000| 564,498 0 0 | 898·837|
+-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | 625714·000| 172,071 7 0 | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 769680·000| 211,662 0 0 | 1032·502|
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | 532147·610| 146,340 11 10 | |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 835920·000| 229,878 0 0 | 811·466|
+-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
| ” 1864 ” 1865 |1936800·000| 532,620 0 0 | 1100·169|
| ” 1865 ” 1866 |1880640·000| 517,176 0 0 | 906·407|
| ” 1866 ” 1867 |1739520·000| 478,368 0 0 | 891·389|
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 961200·000| 264,330 0 0 | 473·724|
| ” 1868 ” 1869 | 597600·000| 164,340 0 0 | 280·764|
+-------------------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| Date. | Value of |Value of Sweep|
| | Waste. | recovered. |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._ |
|August 1851 to March 1852| | |
|April 1852 to March 1853 |507 10 0 | 121 17 6½ |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| ” 1853 ” 1854 |809 6 8 | 160 12 4 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 |180 15 6 | 69 19 2¼ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 |449 1 3 | 104 5 7½ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 |602 12 6 | 149 10 9¼ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 |250 6 5 | 98 1 10 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 |232 0 3 | 125 8 4 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 |247 3 7 | 10 18 3 |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 |283 18 9 | 46 7 1½ |
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | | |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 |223 3 1 | Nil. |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| ” 1864 ” 1865 |302 10 11 | 15 6 7 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 |249 5 3 | 16 9 4 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 |245 2 8 | Nil. |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 |130 5 6 | 121 3 3½ |
| ” 1868 ” 1869 | 77 4 2 | Nil. |
+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
+-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Date. |Value of Waste per|Value of Sweep per|
| | £1,000,000. | £1,000,000. |
+-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| | £ _s. d._| £ _s. d._ |
|August 1851 to March 1852| | |
|April 1852 to March 1853 | 1,315 9 5 | 315 18 1 |
+-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| ” 1853 ” 1854 | 1,378 10 9 | 273 11 7 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855 | 1,310 18 1 | 507 6 3 |
| ” 1855 ” 1856 | 1,434 9 8 | 333 2 3 |
| ” 1856 ” 1857 | 1,222 6 4 | 303 6 2 |
| ” 1857 ” 1858 | 640 15 4 | 251 1 11 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859 | 582 2 1 | 314 13 3 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860 | 437 17 5 | 19 6 7 |
+-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| ” 1860 ” 1861 | | |
| ” 1861 ” 1862 | 739 18 8 | 120 16 0 |
| ” 1862 ” 1863 | | |
| ” 1863 ” 1864 | 593 3 0 | Nil. |
+-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| ” 1864 ” 1865 | 568 0 9 | 28 15 7 |
| ” 1865 ” 1866 | 481 19 4 | 31 16 9 |
| ” 1866 ” 1867 | 512 8 8 | Nil. |
| ” 1867 ” 1868 | 492 16 11 | 458 7 8 |
| ” 1868 ” 1869 | 469 16 2 | Nil. |
+-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
C. W. FREMANTLE, DEPUTY MASTER AND COMPTROLLER.
ROYAL MINT, _2nd March, 1870_.

STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF SILVER COINED AND OF THE LOSS ATTENDING ITS MANIPULATION IN THE MELTING DEPARTMENT.

+------------------------+-----------+-----------------+
| | | |
| Date—Financial Year. |Weight of |Value of Coinage.|
| |Coinage. | |
| | | |
+------------------------+-----------+-----------------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s. d._|
|June 1851 to March 1852| 314689·050| 86,539 9 9¼ |
|April 1852 to March 1853|1088196·550|299,254 1 0¼ |
| ” 1853 ” 1854|2135071·750|587,144 14 7½ |
| ” 1854 ” 1855| 501459·800|137,901 8 10¾ |
| ” 1855 ” 1856|1138355·000|313,047 12 6 |
| ” 1856 ” 1857|1792800·000|493,020 0 0 |
| ” 1857 ” 1858|1420560·000|390,654 0 0 |
| ” 1858 ” 1859|1449360·000|398,574 0 0 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860|2052720·000|564,499 0 0 |
|March 1861 to June 1861| 650160·000|178,794 0 0 |
+------------------------+-----------+-----------------+
+------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+
| | | | |
| Date—Financial Year. |Amount of| Value of the | Value of |
| | Loss by | Silver Lost. | Sweep Sold. |
| | Melting | | |
+------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+
| | Ounces. | £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._|
|June 1851 to March 1852| | | 36 0 1 |
|April 1852 to March 1853| 1496·945| 411 13 2¼ | 111 19 4½ |
| ” 1853 ” 1854| 1814·808| 499 1 5¼ | 143 2 4 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855| 882·870| 242 15 9½ | 187 19 7 |
| ” 1855 ” 1856| 519·069| 142 14 10½ | 144 0 2¼ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857| 2912·149| 800 16 9¾ | 151 12 4¼ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858| 1001·676| 275 9 2½ | 100 13 6¼ |
| ” 1858 ” 1859| +733·101|+201 12 0¾ | 115 4 11 |
| ” 1859 ” 1860| 199·288| 54 16 1 | 101 8 8 |
|March 1861 to June 1861| 238·495| 65 9 10¾ | 49 4 4½ |
+------------------------+---------+--------------+-------------+
+------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| | Value of | Value of |
| Date—Financial Year. | Lost Silver | Sweep |
| | per Million | per Million |
| | Coined. | Coined. |
+------------------------+----------------+---------------+
| | £ _s. d._ | £ _s. d._ |
|June 1851 to March 1852| | |
|April 1852 to March 1853| 1,067 0 11¼ | 383 11 1 |
| ” 1853 ” 1854| 849 19 11¾ | 243 15 0 |
| ” 1854 ” 1855| 1,760 11 11¾ |1,363 2 10 |
| ” 1855 ” 1856| 456 19 7½ | 460 0 5¾ |
| ” 1856 ” 1857| 1,624 7 1¾ | 307 10 6¾ |
| ” 1857 ” 1858| 705 2 6½ | 257 14 2¾ |
| ” 1858 ” 1859| +505 16 2½ | 289 2 10¾ |
| ” 1859 ” 1860| 97 1 8¼ | 179 13 9 |
|March 1861 to June 1861| 366 6 3¼ | 275 5 7¼ |
+------------------------+----------------+---------------+

To obtain the true amount of loss, deduct the value of the sweep from the value of the silver lost.

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

MELTING DEPARTMENT.

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_.