HC Deb 09 June 1871 vol 206 cc1776-7
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to a discrepancy between the two Parliamentary Returns, No. 157, "Royal Mint, 19th April 1869," and No. 262, "Royal Mint, 31st May 1870;" the first showing for the nine years from 1860 to 1868 an apparent loss on the silver coinage of £5,473 4s. 6d., and the second an apparent profit for the same years of £1,011,668 2s.; and, whether this discrepancy of £1,017,141 6s. 6d. can be accounted for by the difference between the "total amount paid for silver bullion," and the "real cost or value of (silver) metal?"

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, in reply, said, there were two sources from which the Mint derived the bullion or silver which it coined; the one was that which was open to all Her Majesty's subjects—namely, to go into the market and purchase silver bullion for that purpose at the market price. The other was that which they were obliged to do in order to maintain the currency in an efficient state—namely, to take the worn-out silver coin at its nominal value, by which, of course, a loss was sustained, as they gave new shillings and half-crowns in exchange for old. In the first Return alluded to by the hon. Baronet—which was made before he himself had anything to do with the Mint—the heading was certainly inaccurate. There were two columns—the one was the total value of the silver coined—that was, the number of pieces issued, which was the same in both Returns; but the second column was the real cost or value of the metal. That was the heading of it, and under that heading they included in the old Return not only the bullion bought by the Mint in the market, but also the money given in exchanging new coins for old, thereby mixing up together two things which were entirely distinct, and thus making that apparent loss. In order to correct that, they had in the second Return divided those two things; they had made one Return for the amount of money paid for bullion in the market, and another for the amount of money given in exchange for worn-out coin. And it was by comparing the amount paid for bullion in the market with the other Return, which included not only the amount paid for bullion, but also the amount given in exchange for worn-out coin, that the apparent discrepancy arose.