G Day everyone heres some info on the Royal mines act that was / has been Abolished
Please note this was sent to me by our member WAULESPAN
AU
MINES ROYAL ABOLISHED
Following further discoveries since the story was published on ForArgyll.com I am now more confident that the Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC) have no claim on any native gold or gold or silver ores in England and Wales. Further research on the position in Scotland and N Ireland is needed.
This means that gold panners and detectorists are free by law, with consent from landowners to prospect for gold and silver on land not owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners.
First, I read and made a Word copy of The Times report on the case Attorney-General v Pritchard Morgan, 1891 (available on request). I found a reference to the case in GW Hall’s The Gold Mines of Merioneth (pg 90). It seemed very odd that the CEC did not refer directly to the case in the Notes to the Crown Estate Act 1961. Paragraph 18 of the Notes admits that the Crown has no claim on gold or silver found in copper, tin, iron or lead ores. This contradicted the 1891 Appeal Court ruling, in which the judges stated that all gold and silver in base ores still belonged to the crown.
However, the judges failed to consider a key repeal of the legislation in force which was central to the case. There was also a further repeal of the CEC’s powers in 1969. In effect, the CEC is ignoring its own official 1961 Notes and the 1969 repeal.
The following short essay outlines these repeals and refers to a recent government paper.
PREEMPTION ABOLISHED = PREROGATIVE ABANDONED
Why in 1961 did the CEC officially relinquish its claim on gold and silver in copper, tin, iron and lead ores, when the Appeal Court judges in 1891 had ruled that these belonged to the Crown? Is this explained by the repeal in 1867 of the requirement in the 1688 Mines Royal Act for mine owners to bring refined gold and silver to the Mint? Section 2 of the 1693 Act, the Preemption clause, was still technically in force. So, were gold and silver in admixtures still claimable by the Crown up to 1969 under the terms of the 1891 judgment, despite the 1867 repeal?
What was the effect of the repeal of Section 2 in 1969, if not merely to confirm that it was obsolete? The answer lies in the Bill of Rights 1689.
The Bill of Rights reserved prior charters or grants.
Provided that no charter, or grant, or pardon, granted before the three and twentieth day of October [1689] shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and no other than as if this act had never been made.
The prior crown grants to the monopoly companies may have been protected, but they no longer exist. The ordinary landowner had no right to mine any ores containing gold or silver, until 1688, and the monopoly companies were not very successful, to say the least. There was, therefore no tax/duty on the subject on gold or silver prior to the Bill of Rights, so such new duty required an Act of Parliament, which does not exist.
The 1688 & 1693 Mines Royal Acts should be read and interpreted in light of the Bill of Rights. The Appeal Court Judges failed to do so because Pritchard Morgan M.P. failed to include the Bill of Rights (or the 1867 repeal of the Mint clause) into his pleadings. He should have rebooted the case with this new evidence. However, he was a barrister and he must have thought that his original arguments were sound. In any case, his operation at Gwynfynydd could not afford further delay. The 1891 Appeal decision was, therefore deeply flawed and limited in its application. Due to his incompetent handling of his own case, Morgan lost his house at Brynterion in lieu of costs, a warning for the mine owners who did not understand the complex background to the case.
Geology, or perhaps goldology was at the heart of the case, and the judges did not consider in any depth how the preemption clause in the 1693 Act would have applied in the case of the Gwynfynydd ores.
John Calvert, in The Gold Rocks of Great Britain and Ireland (1853), pg 191, states that ' In 1670, Sir John Pettus in - Pettus Fodinae Regales, (pg 18). stated that all the gold and silver obtained in England was got by extraction from other metals, and not from mines of perfect gold and silver. This seems to have been the case.' Page 195. ‘In the reign of William III. the acts were passed for enabling lead and copper mines to be worked which contained gold or silver, allowing the ores to be exported, and removing all obstacles to parting. This has not, however, produced any effect, so far as gold is concerned.’
If Calvert’s sources were accurate the Royal Mint’s records would reveal few if any returns of refined gold and silver (from base ores) as required by the 1688 Act until 1867.
Until the mid 19th century, there appear to have been no declared discoveries of high grade gold and silver ores in mines. It is reasonable to assume, therefore that the Crown did not have ‘perfect gold and silver ores’ in mind when agreeing to the terms of the 1688 and 1693 Acts, as well as the 1689 Bill of Rights. However, perfect, or native gold and silver, if found until 1867 would also have been covered by the terms of these three Acts, in combination. Parliament had instituted mining regulations in 1688 & 1693. For various reasons the Crown did not take advantage of these regulations, they became obsolete and were repealed by stages. The Crown could have objected to these repeals, but did not.
The 1688/93 regulations would have worked in theory at least, as follows. Up until 1867, honest mine owners would offer their base ores to the Crown, whose agents could pay the Section 2 price and cart it away for processing and refining, at the Crown’s expense, or the expense of the Crown monopolies companies. If the Crown or those companies did not exercise the Section 2 option within 30 days, the honest mine owner would carry out the refining of the base ores and would then bring all of the refined gold and silver to the Mint, as originally required by the 1688 Mines Royal Act.
If a mine was found to contain pockets of very rich gold or silver ores, or virtually perfect gold or silver the honest mine owner would bring these directly to the mint, without the need for refining the base ores. However, after the 1867 repeal of the Mint clause, a repeal which the Judges failed to take into account in 1891, a mine owner was no longer obliged to give the Crown any gold or silver, whether its source was from low grade or high grade ores, or was ‘perfect gold or silver’, i.e. native gold.
At that stage the Crown was not loosing much, because they could not pay the costs of mining and refining, and no native gold or silver was being reported, or admitted. Pritchard Morgan’s discovery of high grade gold deposits at Gwynfynydd in 1888 changed the Crown’s mood. Whether or not they were aware of the 1867 repeal of the Mint clause and the anti- Prerogative tax/duty clause in the Bill of Rights, their claim against Morgan depended on his lack of attention to these crucial amendments.
Today, the CEC is playing the same game, depending upon the ignorance of landowners regarding the total repeal of the Crown’s ownership of gold and silver on private land. If a landowner mines on his or her own land, does the Crown propose to take all of the gold and silver, without paying? This would be a tax of 100%. According to the strict terms of the Bill of Rights a landowner is not obliged to pay any tax on native gold or silver, or to apply for any prospecting license, the cost of which would in itself be a tax, without the authority of an Act of Parliament. The CEC has not sought such an Act.
Therefore, since 1867 Crown has had no legal grounds to cherry-pick occasional rich gold lodes, which as we know are isolated and unreliable within the quartz veins of the Dolgellau gold belt.
The CEC cannot resort to Elizabeth’s 1568 Case of Mines Decision, ignoring the repeals and amendments which undermined. Parliament has in effect given landowners the freedom to mine any ores, and the Crown no longer has any claim on any kind of gold or silver ores, whether high or low grade.
A few years ago the government produced a paper, which cast doubt upon the prerogative powers, including Royal Mines.
Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers
Page 48
Archaic prerogative powers
The nature of the prerogative has changed over time. Historically the Royal prerogative has been described as residual powers of the Crown. In particular there are some powers which can be described as residual powers relating to small, specific issues or which are a legacy of a time before legislation was enacted in that area. It is unclear whether some of these prerogative powers continue to exist.
Guardianship of infants and those suffering certain mental disorders
Right to bona vacantia
Right to sturgeon, (wild and unmarked) swans and whales as casual revenue
Right to wreck as casual revenue
Right to construct and supervise harbours
By prerogative right the Crown is prima facie the owner of all land covered by the narrow seas adjoining the coast, or by arms of the of the sea or public navigable rivers, and also of the foreshore, or land between high and low water mark
Right to waifs and strays
Right to impress men into the Royal Navy
Right to mint coinage
Right to precious metals (Royal Mines); also to dig for saltpetre
Grant of franchises, e.g. for markets, ferries,
The government decided that it was not a good use of Parliamentary time to make further inquiries into these matters. However, there are signs that the Scottish government may be inclined to review these archaic claims.
Watch this space!
Brian Wright Treasurer Gold Rivers Trust
Linkback: You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login
http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg180609.html#msg180609
|
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 07:21:52 am by Ridge Runner »
|
Logged
|
|
