§ On the question, that a sum of 77,806l. be granted to defray the expenses of the Mint,
§ MR. HUMEcomplained of the great expense of this department. From a return lately laid upon the Table of that House, it appeared that for the recoinage of 11,000,000l. the public had been subjected to a surcharge of 43,000l. He was anxious, therefore, to see this department placed in a condition in which so large an expenditure would not be incurred; and he had determined to oppose any further proceeding without an inquiry—seeing that the public were put to an unnecessarily large expense, and believing that the establishment did not answer the purpose for 1267 which it was intended—and it was with great reluctance that he had come to the determination not to press his Amendment. He contended that they were not warranted in paying away such large sums for an establishment which ought to maintain itself. In France, in America, and in many other countries, the Government was put to comparatively little expense in connexion with the coinage. In a former Session a Committee was appointed to inquire into the mode of transacting business at the Mini, and the evidence taken before that Committee established the existence of abuses which it would be easy to remove. It would afford him pleasure to know that every ounce of silver imported into this country was coined into British crowns, and he knew of no reason why the circulation of such a coinage throughout the world should not be co-extensive with the commerce of England. In the present state of public business, he would not oppose the vote before the Committee; but he hoped that the Government would direct its attention to the points to which he had adverted.
§ MR. SHEILsaid, that the Committee to which the hon. Member for Montrose had alluded, and which sat in 1837, made no report to the House; if, therefore, they discovered the existence of any abuses in the management of the Mint, they had left no record of their opinion on the subject. Should the hon. Member be disposed to move for the reappointment of the Committee, the Government would offer no objection to the proposition. It was true that in other countries the expense of the Mint was not so great; but, as Sir T. Atkinson had well stated before the Committee to which he had alluded, neither were salaries generally so high in those countries. At all events security to the public property had been obtained, and that he thought a great point. He did feel that some improvement might be made in the appointment of officers and apprentices; but the circumstance that no loss had ever been sustained by the public, not with standing the enormous sums which had been coined, ought not to be lost sight of by any Committee which might be appointed.
§ MR. HUMEdisclaimed the intention of impugning in the least degree the integrity and. honour of the officers of the Mint; all he complained of was the system which permitted those parties to overcharge the public 43,000l. in an account of 67,000l.
§ MR. SHEILwas happy to find that the hon. Member intended to cast no imputa- 1268 tion on the moral character of the officers of the Mint, which stood as high as that of any persons employed in other departments of the Government. The hon. Member complained of the coinage of 11,000,000l. having cost 67,000l.; but in 1774 the coinage of 15,000,000l. cost 758,000l.
§ MR. HUMEobserved, that since the period referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the Mint had been supplied with improved apparatus, at an enormous expense.
MR. WILLIAMSsaid, the objection was that the Mint was in the hands of a private company instead of that of Government; and that, therefore, there was no necessity for an inquiry. The importance of the Government having this in their own hands was perceptible, when they looked at any great crisis, such as that in 1825, when the demand on the Bank of England for coin was so tremendous. No doubt the Mint did make as much exertion as it was possible to be made, and coined an immense quantity of gold in a short time; but it ought to be in the hands of the Government. As to the security talked of by the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt it would be as secure in the hands of Government as in that of any private company. He hoped that the Government would direct its attention to the subject.
§ SIR G. CLERKsaid, the hon. Member for Coventry talked as though they were at the mercy of a private company when a large issue was required; but he thought the experience of the period of 1825 showed that company as anxious to do its duty as any one could be. They were merely contractors; and the system in this country was the same as that in France, Holland, and in all others, except, he believed, the United States. They contracted for the expense of the fabrication of the coin; that contract might be too advantageous to the contractor; and, if so, that, he conceived, would be a question for the Master of the Mint to consider. The hon. Member for Montrose had talked of the charge on coining 11,000,000l.; and no doubt if that sum were coined every year, it was possible the price would bear reduction, but the quantity and period of work was uncertain. There might be intervals of months or years without work, and during all that time the contractors had a large capital lying unproductive.
§ MR. HUMEdid not know of any capital. Formerly they used public materials for their private assays, but that had been 1269 done away with. That they had a large capital sometimes lying dormant required explanation, and perhaps the right hon. Baronet, who had been Master of the Mint (Sir G. Clerk), would enlighten the House on that point.
§ SIR G. CLERKreferred the hon. Member to the evidence taken before the Committee for information on the point.
§ MR. SHEILsaid, that the company were obliged to keep up their machinery, and to pay the wages of a number of skilful artisans during the time they were not engaged in coining. With respect to the question generally, he did not hesitate to say that it would he matter of future consideration for the Government whether some useful modification might not be made in the existing system.
§ MR. THORNELYwished to know whether any progress had been made in the coinage of two-shilling pieces?
§ MR. SHEILhad consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was officially more responsible than himself as to the form the coin should assume, and the right hon. Baronet had promised to give his attention to the subject. He (Mr. Sheil) had given instructions to the engraver to be in readiness, should it be determined to coin two-shilling pieces.
§ MR. HUMEsaid, that as the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Clerk) did not reply, he should beg to ask the present Master of the Mint what capital the moneyers were compelled to employ?
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, if the hon. Member were to refer to the evidence taken by the Committee, he would find they were obliged, in addition to the charges alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil), to keep a quantity of material always ready. If they were to take an average of ten years, they would find that each of these persons received a sum which was not much for their risk and trouble.
§ MR. HUMEThat was not the point. All the material was supplied at the public expense. he knew of no capital or risk with which they were concerned.
MR. WILLIAMSsaid, it was quite absurd to talk of their keeping a stock of bullion; they merely coined that which was put into their hands by the Government or by private persons, and made a charge on it. He ventured to assert, that those individuals divided annually profits to a larger amount each than the salary of the Master of the Mint—a high officer of State, and often a Cabinet Minister. Why this was, he 1270 did not know, for they could do nothing without the superintendence of the Master of the Mint.
§ Vote agreed to.