§ LORD KINNAIRDI rise to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the past and present management of the Mint, and although I very much regret that it is the intention of the Government not to assent to my Motion, I feel bound, nevertheless, to call your Lordships' attention to the mismanagement of the Department to which my Motion refers. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that when the Coinage Bill was under consideration I moved for certain Returns connected with the gold coinage, 383 my object being to show that considerable loss occurred in the process of coining. Some of those Returns were granted, but others were refused on the plea that they were too voluminous to lay on your Lordships' Table. But I have made inquiries, and find that refusal was made because the officials of the Mint did not wish for any searching inquiry, and because the Returns would have exposed certain malpractices connected with the coinage. I also moved, when the Bill was in Committee, for certain Returns connected with the coinage of silver and the transactions between the Bank of England and the Mint. I was informed on that occasion that no record was kept of those transactions; I saw at the time that was a subterfuge, and that the officials know these Returns would disclose certain malpractices at the Mint which they would prefer were not made public, for not only is a record of these transactions kept but the Returns could be granted with ease. I have found, however, that a Return has been presented to the House of Commons, which gives me the principal part of the information I desired to obtain by the Returns for which I moved. That Return, I have heard said, is not strictly correct; but it is a Return presented to Parliament, and as far as the figures to which I wish to refer are concerned I have reason to believe they must be correct. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who answered me on that occasion, admitted that as regards the gold there was great loss in coinage. He said that although the Government was not supposed to make money by the gold coinage, they made a considerable sum by the silver; and at another time (on the 24th March) he said that although there was a loss resulting from keeping the silver up to the proper standard, through wear and tear, yet on the manufacture there was a profit of something like £20,000 a year. Now, I am not going to hold the noble Marquess to any statement he made on that occasion, because not being himself connected with the Mint he must have been dependent on the officials; but I can assure him that statement is entirely erroneous. It is quite true that a profit was made in the Mint in the year 1859 of £27,032 on the coinage of silver, and this arose from the large quantity coined and the very small purchase of worn coin, 384 £647,064 worth of silver was coined in that year as against a yearly average of £341,018, and the purchase of worn coin amounted to only £8,096 as against the average of £14,633. But although this profit of £27,032 was made in this year, there was a loss of £5,373 during the next nine years. Now, my Lords, as regards the coinage of silver, there should be an uniform profit. The price of silver is 5s. 1d. or 5s. 1⅜d. per ounce, so that there should be a profit of 7½ per cent upon the silver coin. In 1868 the sum purchased was £312,252, which should have yielded a profit of £23,368, but the Return showed a loss of £10,896; so that, adding the loss on to what the profit should have been, we find that the Mint was £34,265 on the wrong side that year in its silver coinage; but inasmuch as the loss on the purchase of worn silver was £18,058 in that year, the net loss to the Mint through mismanagement was £16,207. Now, what became of that sum of money? How has it disappeared? The noble Lord admits gold was abstracted during the process of coining, and I say that the loss now arises from peculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself contradicts the noble Lord, and admits that there is a loss on silver, for in the Estimates I find he asked the House of Commons to vote £1,000 to make good the loss on silver, in addition to £15,000 for the loss occasioned by repairing that coinage for the coming year, which has to be paid out of the pockets of the people instead of the Exchequer being replenished by the legitimate profit of £20,000. But the most extraordinary loss is in the coinage of copper. One ton of copper costs about £100, and when converted into coin it is worth £358, giving an actual gross profit of £258; yet I find the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for £1,000 last year to make good the loss on the copper coinage. I have been rather amused to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking slightingly of the loss on the gold coinage, saying in all probability it went up the chimney. I think it is more likely to have gone up "the spout." Now, I find another item in the Estimates of £1,800 for the expenses of an inquiry into foreign mints. This represents the expenses of three gentlemen who are going to inquire into the method of coining adopted on the Continent; 385 but, on inquiry, I find that nearly all the machinery in use in foreign mints went from this country, so that we could ascertain all we want to know about the practice in foreign mints, by making inquiries of certain engineering firms in this country. I may be told that the foreign mints may have improved on the machinery supplied to them, but even this may be ascertained without going to this enormous expense. Moreover, most of the coining on the Continent is done by contract, and it is not likely that contractors will give a Government Commissioner, who is competing with them by advertisement, much information as to the way in which, they carry on their work; so that altogether this £1,800 will be completely thrown away. And who are the gentlemen commissioned to make this inquiry? The Deputy Master is one of them—a most excellent, financial man; but, unfortunately, he knows nothing of the practical part of the business, and will gain very little by his trip. Then there is Mr. Roberts, lately appointed chemist to the Mint; he is to go, but his qualifications for the post are very doubtful. Ever since the Mint was taken out of the hands of those contractors who were called the "moneyers," the appointments there have formed one uniform system of jobbery. The appointments were regarded as political prizes, and so distributed; but an outcry was raised, and matters were smoothed over by appointing two scientific men successively to the office of Master of the Mint. Neither of them, however, knew anything of the process of manufacture, and their management was signalized by increased losses. Then we were told this would all be done away with, but now we have another nice little job perpetrated by the appointment of Mr. Roberts, a gentleman of no very great talent, to the office of chemist. Well, Mr. Roberts is to go on this Commission of Inquiry, and the third gentleman is Mr. Napier, one qualified in every respect for the duty, but for all that the very last man who should have been sent. In 1858 a sum of £1,100 was set apart for the purchase of a filing machine in accordance with an estimate sent in by Mr. Napier for the purpose; but, before the order was executed, an officer in the Mint made a machine answering every purpose which cost only £60, and nobody knows what became of this £1,100. I believe this Commission 386 is going to Spain, but Mr. Napier manufactured the machinery in use there, so he is going to Spain to see how his own machines work, and he is to receive £2,000 for doing it. Perhaps, however, as the war has broken out the trip will be postponed. Now, my Lords, what I say I am prepared to substantiate before a Committee, and I challenge contradiction. That an inquiry is needed even at this late period of the Session is patent, for the House of Commons has only recently voted no less than £18,000 to make up the losses in the Mint. I have been told that Mr. Fremantle and Mr. Rivers Wilson have made a report on the subject of some of these complaints, and have suggested improvements; but these improvements would have no effect upon the working of the establishment, and would not touch the main defects in the system. One of the alterations made in consequence of that report was a revision of the scale of wages. Formerly the workmen had a retaining fee varying from 6s. to 10s. per week when unemployed, and a certain wage beside when at work. But the pay was very small, and it was thought this might lead to peculation. The scale has accordingly been revised by the payment of £1 per week as retaining fee, but the revision is calculated to give the men a little less on the whole, a result to be expected when the arrangement was made by so skilful a financier as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the country saves £100 a year out of the workmen's wages. But the most extraordinary part of the revision is to come; and this affords another instance with the sugar duties, hawkers' licences, and the gun tax, of the readiness with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer jumps to conclusions, without being at the trouble to inform himself upon the subject in hand. The workmen are by this new scale to receive less when coining gold than when coining silver, although the temptation to peculation is greater; so that at the time when their honesty should be secured by good payment, they are to be treated with a niggardly hand, and who can be surprised if they help themselves? The noble Marquess says there has been only one case of dismissal for peculation; but, if he inquires further, he will find there have been 12. No prosecution has followed these dismissals 387 nor even an inquiry. Prosecutions would not be palatable to the Mint authorities, because they would expose the system. Now, I can assure your Lordships, that these statements I have made are true in every respect, and I challenge contradiction; and I trust the Government will think the facts really demand a searching inquiry. More than a year since, I brought the subject before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was pooh-poohed, and I was told that a private inquiry would be made: but no inquiry has been made, and the system remains unamended. I therefore move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the past and present management of the Mint.
§ Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the past and present management of Her Majesty's Royal Mint.—(The Lord Rossie.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI regret that it is my duty to decline to accede to the Motion of the noble Lord, but I feel sure your Lordships will admit, when I have made a brief statement of the facts of the case, that the Government is warranted in refusing the Committee. I must admit that two cases of peculation have occurred at the Mint; but the persons concerned were dismissed, and there has been no reason to suspect a recurrence of the practice; I am sure, therefore, the noble Lord is under a misapprehension, when he says there have been 12 cases of dismissal for peculation during the last few years. As regards the charge of wasteful management, I must repeat the statement I made on a previous occasion. The noble Lord, I fear, confuses two things—namely, the loss occurring from the necessity of keeping the silver coinage up to the proper standard, and the gain which accrues from the coining; and, on the whole, there is a distinct gain, although I may, on a previous occasion, have overstated the amount. There is, notwithstanding the information of which the noble Lord appears to be possessed, a gain of £5,000 a year on the silver coinage. The amount of waste on the gold coinage has, within the last few years, been extremely moderate: it is, at present, 1s. per £100; and an eminent firm of refiners in the City have given an opinion that this is very satisfactory. So much for the past. With regard to the present, I must say that as the Department has recently been reorganized, 388 it would be hardly fair, before it had got into full working order, to institute an inquiry. The staff has been reduced, thus effecting a saving on this year's Estimates of £5,000; the system of the payment of wages has been altered, resulting in a small saving and in a marked effect on the staff; and the melting and coining departments have been united, avoiding that apparent confusion between the accounts of the two departments, which has, in some respects, misled the noble Lord. Lastly, I come to the Commission of Inquiry, which has been travelling on the Continent. Now, if the machines in use on the Continent have been mostly made at Birmingham, much may be learnt, as to their application and the character of the metals used, by the proposed inquiry. As regards the members of that Commission, I must say the noble Lord spoke in scarcely justifiable terms of Mr. Roberts, who is a very eminent chemist, and has proved his capabilities by devising a system for depriving gold of the obnoxious properties on which the noble Lord recently commented. The noble Lord did not fail to admit that Mr. Napier was eminently qualified for a post on the Commission; and, as regards the Deputy Master, he has exhibited great abilities in discharging the duties of his office, and I do not think the noble Lord has said a single word to show he has forfeited our good opinion. I have only a single word to add; and the noble Lord must forgive me if I speak candidly. The noble Lord will recognize this book which I hold in my hand; it contains the larger portion of the charges made by the noble Lord; and I ask him whether it is good that he should endeavour to throw discredit on a recently re-organized Department upon the basis of a pamphlet written by a discharged official of that Department?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI rise in consequence mainly of a remark made by the noble Lord on a previous occasion, which has occasioned considerable pain to the relatives of a late very distinguished public servant. As a personal friend of Professor Graham, the late Master of the Mint, a man of great eminence in all scientific matters, I feel it my duty to notice an imputation on his fidelity made by the noble Lord on a former occasion. On inquiry at the Treasury, 389 where there was no interest in defending the memory of a dead man, I have found that there was never a shadow of suspicion on Professor Graham's perfect integrity. There have been, no doubt, small cases of peculation, as, I take it, there always must be in a Department dealing with such valuable materials, and where many workmen are engaged; but they are detected as promptly as possible. I am afraid the noble Lord has been influenced by a clerk who was dismissed, or ceased to be employed, during Professor Graham's Mastership.
§ LORD KINNAIRDI am quite ready, as far as Professor Graham is concerned, to acquit him individually and personally from anything improper; all I have to say with regard to Professor Graham is that he was not a fit person for the office, as he continued the jobbery which he found in existence and which had prevailed there ever since the Mint was a Government office. He appointed his own brother, a calico printer, to an office for which he was entirely unfit not only on the ground of general incompetence, but from his well-known habits of intemperance. I am quite ready to admit that the bulk of the information I possess upon the subject is obtained from Mr. Ansell, who was for many years employed by the Master of the Mint, and who, as the Returns show, succeeded in making even the gold coinage a paying department, as it should be, instead, of a losing departent, as it is; but my statements are also founded on, and confirmed by, Returns presented to both Houses of Parliament. Mr. Ansell also put a stop to peculation, and made himself very unpopular among the officials in consequence. Mr. Ansell gave up very valuable appointments in order to fulfil his duties at the Mint, under the repeated promise of promotion when a vacancy should occur; and I am afraid I am responsible for what is called his dismissal, for, when I applied to the late Prime Minister for his promotion, Mr. Graham, who, in common with the other officials, feared an exposure from Mr. Ansell's promotion, wrote him a letter of dismissal as follows:—
§ "Royal Mint, Sept. 28, 1868.
§ "Dear Sir,—I regret to have to inform you that it is not in my power to continue your present engagement as an extra officer in the Coining Department, while the Mint is only so partially occupied as it has been for some time past. Your 390 assistance will not, therefore, be required beyond the 31st of December next.—I remain, faithfully yours,
§ "THOMAS GRAHAM.
§ "G. F. Ansell, Esq."
§
After this dismissal the profit ceased and the loss recurred. I accordingly applied to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an inquiry; but I was treated rather summarily, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he deprecated any inquiry. Only two or three months, however, after giving him that notice, and while he was still engaged in the Mint, Mr. Graham warmly recommended him for the office of Gas Inspector to the Corporation of London, stating that he was a well-informed practical chemist, and "a man of tried integrity." Within three months after the Master of the Mint dismissed this officer — who, as the Returns will show, had saved the country some thousands—he writes this testimonial—
I beg to express the very favourable opinion which I entertain of Mr. G. F. Ansell's qualifications for the office of Inspector of Gas to the Corporation of London. Mr. Ansell is a well-informed practical chemist, and has given much attention for several years to gas. He is the inventor of an ingenious instrument for indicating the presence of fire-damp in the atmosphere of mines, which is much admired by scientific and practical men. Mr. Ansell is also a man of tried integrity and great energy. From what I have seen of him at the Mint I would say that he would devote himself entirely and conscientiously to the work of the new office, if appointed.
§ LORD KINNAIRDThomas Graham. And, notwithstanding this high testimony to the value of his services, this man was dismissed because he knew too much of what was going on in the Mint. I challenge the Mint authorities to prove a single statement in his book to be false. If they can, why do they not contradict him? They dare not. Mr. Ansell's book has been some months before the public, and if the Mint could have challenged his statements, which are very damaging, they would certainly have done so. I challenge contradiction. I am very glad the noble Lord has given me the opportunity of making this statement with regard to Mr. Graham, a talented man, but quite unable to cope with the clever men about him, unaided by Mr. Ansell. Now that Mr. Ansell has been dismissed, you see what is the result. The noble Lord has told your 391 Lordships of reforms which have been made at the Mint; but I can assure him I expect little good to result from those reforms, for the very men who then had charge of these departments, and who permitted the peculations and mismanagement which Mr. Ansell stopped, are the men who are now promoted to the chief management of the operative departments of the Mint. I hope, therefore, the matter will not be allowed to drop, for I am sure there is no Department in this or any other country more corrupt than the Mint.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNErose to explain. In the Table published by Mr. Ansell, the operation of melting appeared to have been left out of sight. The coining operations had been put forward, but the losing operations were kept behind. The statement in the memorial, in respect to the alleged promise made to Mr. Ansell, was absolutely without foundation.
§ Motion (by Leave of the House) withdraw.