I.

Handed in by Mr. Conybeare, M.P., Question 19,943. A Bill to regulate the imposition of Mining Royalties in the United Kingdom.

Whereas it is expedient in the interests of the mining industries of the United Kingdom that greater security should be given to persons engaged in such iuaustries:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. In every county where mining operations are or shall be hereafter carried on, a Court shall be established, having the jurisdiction of all questions relating to leasing and working of mines under this Act.

2. Such Court shall consist of, (1) in England, the county court judge, and not less than six, nor more than twelve, assessors, the number to be determined by the judge, according to the size of the county; (2) in Scotland, the sheriff of the county or his substitute, and a like number of assessors, determined as aforesaid; and (3) in Ireland, the Land Commissioners.

3. The assessors in England and Scotland shall for each county be elected as follows; that is to say, one third by the owners of lands and heritages whose assessable rental, as appearing on the valuation roll, shall be at least of the annual value of fifty pounds sterling; one third by the lessees of mines or minerals being wrought, whose assessable rental, as appearing on the valuation roll, shall be at least fifty pounds sterling; and one third by the miners employed in such mines, and whose names appear in the register of persons entitled to vote for a member of Parliament in force at the time of such election of assessors; and in the case of land being owned by more than one proprietor, or of mines or minerals being held by more than one tenant or lessee, only one of such proprietors, tenants, or lessees shall be entitled to vote in such election.

4. A majority of the persons forming the Court shall be a quorum, and in the event of the Court being equally divided as to the judgment to be pronounced, the county court judge, sheriff, or chairman of the Land Commissioners, as the case may be, shall have a deliberative and also a casting vote. Any vacancy occurring among the assessors, by death or otherwise, shall be filled up by the Court from the class to which the member whose place is to be filled belonged.

5. The first election of assessors shall take place within three months after the passing of this Act, on a date to be fixed for each county to which the Act applies, by the county court judge in England, by the sheriff in Scotland, and by the Land Commissioners in Ireland; and such election and all subsequent elections shall be conducted under the Act thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth Victoria, chapter thirty-three, by ballot. Future elections of assessors shall be triennial, dating from the first above referred to, and the county court judge, sheriff, or, as the case may be, shall fix the day of election and act as returning officer, or appoint some one to act in that capacity.

6. Every person or any two or more persons who shall at any time after the passing of this Act make an application to the owner or owners of any land containing or believed to contain mines or minerals for a license to work the same, or for a lease or the renewal of a lease thereof, may, if the owners shall refuse to grant the said license or lease, or to renew the lease, or shall refuse to grant or renew the same upon such

terms as the applicants may consider just and reasonable, apply to the Court in the manner herein-after prescribed, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may acquire a lease or a renewal of a lease of the said land for which application has been made, upon such terms and conditions as the Court may deem just and reasonable.

Where the said land is undivided or belongs to two or more owners, the Court shall, upon due notice given in the prescribed manner to all the owners, require them all to join in the same lease, upon such terms and conditions respectively as the Court may deem just.

Where it is proved to the Court that the owner or owners of any portion of such land is or are uncertain or unknown, the Court shall make such order for the payment into Court of the royalties, dues, and other moneys from time to time payable out of such lands to the said owner or owners, to be placed to an account to be kept for the benefit of such persons as to the Court may seem fit.

7. The application to the Court shall be in such form and manner as may be prescribed, and shall specify-(1.) The name and address of the applicant or applicants, and, if a company, the amount of capital raised or to be raised, and whether limited or on the cost-book system.

(2.) The locality and extent of the land in question as shown on the ordnance survey.

(3.) The name and address of the owner or lessor. (4.) As full and correct a plan of previous workings, if any, as possible.

(5.) The nature of the interest sought to be acquired, together with such other particulars as may be prescribed.

8. Upon the hearing of the application the Court shall, if it be satisfied upon the evidence adduced by the parties on both sides that the refusal of the owner or owners to grant the license or lease is under all the circumstances of the case unreasonable, or that the terms and conditions demanded by them are oppressive or opposed to the public interests, grant the application upon such terms as the Court shall deem just.

9. The lessee, under any lease existing at the date of this Act, may apply to the Court for a revision of the terms or conditions of his lease, and the Court shall, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, have power to alter or modify the same in such manner as it shall deem just.

Provided that the lessee shall upon such application prove to the satisfaction of the Court

(1.) That he had previously sought the relief now asked for from the owner or lessor, and had been refused.

(2.) That owing to the altered conditions of the trade it is impossible for him to continue working the mine under the covenants and provisions of the existing lease.

10. Upon the hearing of any application for a lease, or the renewal of an old lease, or the revision of an existing lease, the Court shall fix the dues or royalties or payments by way of dues or royalties on a percentage of the output, having regard to the working of the mine, to the selling price of the mineral, the wages of the workmen, and other circumstances affecting the cost of production, the money value of such payments to be ascertained by striking an average of the selling price of the mineral when brought to the surface during the preceding twelve months.

11. Upon the hearing of any application for a lease, or a renewal or revision of a lease, the Court shall determine the price to be paid for all land destroyed or damaged by the mining operations according to the

Fyrer of Court :respect of vleaves.

marovements belong to ose who make

LAB loumeut of wine.

When lodde

tersects land
different
Ders.

Right of Inspection of

then current market value, whether as agricultural or as building land, such value to be assessed, if necessary, by two competent valuers appointed by the Court.

12. Upon the hearing of any application for a lease, or a renewal of a lease, or the revision of a lease, the Court shall have power to grant wayleaves for the conveyance of the minerals either over, through, or under the adjoining lands of neighbouring owners upon such terms as the Court may deem just and reasonable, and may review and determine the conditions upon which such wayleaves have been previously granted; and any surface damages caused by such wayleaves shall be assessed by the Court upon such a scale as the Court may deem just and reasonable.

13. In all cases improvements, such as engine-houses and other buildings or works necessary for the proper working of the mine, and dwellings for the housing of the workmen employed in or about the mine, which may have been erected and left standing by the lessees, or which may have been erected by the workmen or any parties other than the owner or lessor, and all shafts or other permanent works executed for the development and proper working of the mine, shall, unless the owner shall have taken the same over from such lessee or others at a fair valuation, be deemed to be the property of such lessees, miners, or other parties. The lessees may, subject to the provisions of section fourteen, sub-section three, of this Act, at the expiration of the lease by effluxion of time or otherwise, remove or sell the same as well as all leavings then being upon the land.

14.-(1.) Where the lessees have ceased or neglected to work a mine for a period of twelve months, it shall be lawful for the lessor to apply to the Court, and the Court, upon being satisfied that the lessee or lessees have ceased or neglected to work the mine for such period, shall, unless the lessee shows reasonable excuse, pronounce an order declaring that the lease has expired, and the lease shall be deemed to have expired from the date of such order.

(2.) The lessee or lessees may at any time previous to the expiration of the said twelve months apply to the Court for an extension of time not exceeding six months, and the Court shall have power to grant such extension.

(3.) Provided also, that in all cases where the lessees have so abandoned a mine, all the buildings erected by them upon the sett, and all permanent works and other improvements constructed or made by them, shall be deemed to be their property, and it shall be lawful for them to sell the same either by public auction or by private contract.

15. Where in the working of any mine or sett it is found that the lode, seam, or mineral deposit passes beyond the limits of that mine or sett into the adjacent property of some neighbouring landowner, or where in the course of the working, owing to the influx of water from such adjacent land or other natural causes, it is necessary for the full development and proper working of the mine that the works should be extended beyond the limits of the mine or sett, it shall be competent for the lessee to apply to the Court, and the Court shall, after due notice to such neighbouring owner in the prescribed manner, and upon consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and upon hearing all parties, make such order in the matter as it shall deem just.

16. It shall be lawful for any owner who has granted a lease of any sett, or his steward or agent, either alone Line by owners. or with any other person or persons, at all reasonable times to go down into, examine, dial and measure any part or parts of the mine and works, and for that purpose to use the machinery, tackle, buckets, and other conveniences then and there being. And if any question shall arise between the owners and the miners as to the miner-like manner in which the mine is being worked, it shall be competent for the owner to apply ex parte to the Court for an order for the inspection of the mines by one of Her Majesty's inspectors of mines, and upon the report of such inspector the Court shall make such order in the matter as to costs or otherwise as it may deem just.

19. This Act shall come into operation on the first Papers banded day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty- in by witnesses. eight, which day is herein referred to as the commencement of this Act.

any

Commencement of Act.

20. In this Act "owner" or "lessor" means any Interpretation person in whom for the time being the freehold of clause. land containing or believed to contain minerals is vested, and includes all persons having any estate or interest in the same in remainder or reversion.

"Lease" includes a grant or license for mining purposes, and also an agreement for such lease, grant, or license.

"Lessees" includes every person or persons who as lessees or grantees shall have the right to work any mine, whether as an individual lessee or lessees, or as a limited company under the Companies Acts, or as a company of adventurers under the cost-book system, and also all persons claiming under the original lessees.

"Mines" and "minerals" include all metallic or mineral deposits of whatever kind, whether open quarries of stone or slate, or collieries, or clay or china clay setts, or metalliferous mines or tin streaming works.

'Prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under the provisions of this Act.

"Miners" shall mean every person who hews coal or other mineral, and all other persons employed underground except agents, captains, or other the represen tatives of the lessees or owners.

21. It shall be lawful for the Court, subject to the Provision for approval of the Lord Chancellor in England or Ireland, rules. and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, to make or alter such rules or forms as may be requisite for the regulation of the proceedings under this Act, and to fix or alter any such scale of costs as the Court may deem just, and the same shall come into force on their being approved by the Lord Chancellor in England or Ireland, and of the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland under his hand.

II.

MEMORANDUM of Mr. EDMUND CHASE MARRIOTT upon the Evidence of Mr. C. A. V. CONYBEARE, M.P., given before the ROYAL COMMISSION on MINING ROYALTIES on 7th April 1892.

66

66

one

With reference to the statement in answer 19,974, it is misleading to say that East Pool was paying "fifteenth dues until within the last two years, when it was reduced to one-eighteenth," because, although Mr. Basset was obliged by the restrictions of the settlement under which he held the estate as tenant for lif to reserve the dues at one-fifteenth, he personally covenanted not to take more than one-thirtieth until the mine was making a profit, and then one-eighteenth on tin, which was the main production of the mine, the dues on the other minerals only, which other minerals were of comparatively trifling value, reverting to onefifteenth.

In answer to question 20,008 and 20,010, it is stated as follows:

The Portreath clause was withdrawn because "East "Pool, being a strong mine, resisted it, although I "think one of the Seton mines, I forget whether it was "the Wheal Seton or West Seton or one of the other "mines, was very nearly entrapped, or was quite "entrapped, into acquiescing in it." The clause was to the following effect :That the adventurers should undertake that their coals, howsoever obtained, should be imported through Portreath, provided that the total charges, including freight and carriage from the port to the mine, do not exceed in the aggregate the similar charges ruling at the neighbouring ports of Hayle and Penzance; and that if a vessel consigned to Portreath is driven by stress of weather to Hayle or Penzance, the adventurers should be at liberty, notwithstanding this undertaking, to discharge at either of those ports, if it should be more convenient to them.

At a meeting specially convened at the Carn Brea Mines on the 31st December 1889, as receiver of the estate under the Court of Chancery, I publicly left the

Appendix A. adoption or rejection of the clause absolutely to the decision of a majority of the adventurers in all the Papers handed mines. in by witnesses. In 1888, before Mr. Basset's death, the clause was adopted, after a great deal of criticism and discussion, by a majority of the West Seton Adventurers, and on the 28th April 1890, as receiver of the estate, I wrote to the purser of the mine, offering to apply to the court for leave to expunge the clause from the lease, if after a two years' experience of its operation a majority of the adventurers desired it.

(19,466.)

2. (19,466 and 19,467.)

3. (19,468.)

4. (13,443.)

5.

19,983 and 20,093.-It is stated in 19,983 as follows:That "in the spring quarter of 1890, East Pool paid "almost exactly one-half of the profit divisible

66

amongst the adventurers in the form of royalties to the lord of the mine." Mr. Conybeare also added, "I find that that has been the case also practically in the case of some of the Dolcoath payments.' It is not the fact that East Pool paid any such amount of royalties, for although in the spring quarter of 1890 the royalty reserved in the lease amounted to one-half of the profits divisible_among the adventurers, such royalty was not paid; and at a special meeting at the mine on the 30th May, at the solicitation of the adventurers, including Mr. Conybeare, who was present, I undertook to ask, and I subsequently obtained the sanction of the court to limit the royalty then and for the remainder of the term of the lease to one-fourth of the profit.

The profit divided from the commencement of the lease in 1873 down to that date, upon a called up capital of less than 4,000l., was precisely 327,5201., free of income tax. To this sum must now be added the further amount of 19,0407., subsequently divided.

The total amount paid in royalty for the same period is 60,3471.; considerably less than one-fifth of the profit divided.

Mention was also made by Mr. Conybeare of the Dolcoath payments. With reference to them I wish to observe that on the 28th March 1891, in reply to an application for a reduction of the dues, an alternative offer of reducing them to one-eighteenth of the gross produce, or limiting them to one-fourth part of the net profits, was made to the committee of management. If the latter alternative was accepted, powers were to be reserved to the landlord enabling him to ascertain the amount of net profits, in connection with which it was stipulated on behalf of the landlord that all supplies and materials should be purchased by tender. The committee of Dolcoath Mine preferred and accepted the first alternative.

III.

EDMUND C. MARRIOTT.

OBSERVATIONS on some of the EVIDENCE given on LEGAL POINTS to the COMMISSION. Handed in by Mr. Walmesley on behalf of the Committee of Proprietors. (Question 20,228.)

I.-OWNERSHIP OF MINERALS.

The case of mines under the foreshore of the sea and of tidal navigable rivers, is not in reality an exception from the ordinary rule, as the ownership of the surface of the foreshore is also, primâ facie, vested in the Crown as part of the jura regalia.

The mines in the Forest of Dean and the lead mines in certain parts of the Peak, in Derbyshire, were not vested in the Crown by the Acts referred to. The Crown was already seized of the mines referred to, subject to certain immemorial customs; and the chief object of the Acts appears to have been to define and regulate the customs and make provision for such customs being properly carried into effect.

The mines in the Isle of Man were not vested in the Crown by the Act of Settlement of that Island (in 1703-4). The rights acquired by the Crown by purchase from the Duke of Athol in the year 1765 (see 5 Gec. III. c. 26) were acquired by purchase. The bargain appears from the recitals in that Act.

The vesting of minerals in the Duke of Cornwall by the Act of the 7th & 8th Victoria, chap. 105, was the compromise of a dispute.

It is submitted that the foregoing observations (2, 3, and 4) are important: as it is not the fact that Parliament has from time to time transferred to the Crown new rights with respect to the ownership of minerals, but precisely the contrary.

As regards the foreshore in Durham, the Act 6. (19,468.) referred to was merely confirmatory of an agreement which had been come to as between the bishop and the Crown to settle doubts which had arisen as to the ownership of the foreshore as part of the jura regalia, and does not in any way affect or form an exception to the ordinary rule as to ownership of the minerals by the owner of the surface.

The following are important additional exceptions 7. to those referred to as the exceptions to the ordinary rule, which presumes the owner of the surface to be owner also of the subsoil and minerals, viz. :

1. The case where there has been a severance of
the mines from the surface either by--

Voluntary severance, e.g., where land has been
conveyed or demised reserving the mines,
or vice versâ ; or by

Statutory severance, e.g., where the ownership
of the mines has been severed from that of
the surface by Act of Parliament, e.g., Road,
Railway, or Canal Acts.

2. The case of copyholds and customary freeholds,
where the ownership of the minerals or the
right to work them is vested in the lord of the
manor. In awards under the Copy holds En-
franchisement Acts, the minerals are usually
reserved to the lords of the manor.

In

3. The case of wastes or commons of a manor, where the property in the minerals is vested, primâ facie, in the lords of the manor, though this again is not properly an exception from the ordinary rule, as the soil of the wastes and commons is equally the property of the lord of the manors, subject to the rights of the commoners. awards made under Inclosure Acts, where the property in the minerals was previously in the lord of the manor, such property is usually reserved to him, though it may be otherwise compensated for. In partitions and exchanges made under the Inclosure Acts, mines may also be excepted.

JI.--POWERS OF LEASING.

It is submitted that in the case of the hospital in 8. (19,470.) Durham which has considerable mining property, the difficulty might be met under the existing law, as the Charity Commissioners have power to authorise the granting of mining leases of any part of charity lands, if they think such leases would be beneficial to the charity, although such leases are not authorised or permitted by the trust, and such leases are to have the like effect and validity as if they had been authorised or directed by the express terms of the trust (Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853, ss. 21 and 26). In reference to the remarks on the powers of 9. (19,484.) leasing conferred by the Settled Land Act, 1882, it is submitted that in strict settlements by far the greater number of tenants for life are unimpeachable for waste, and would therefore only have to set aside one fourth (not three fourths) of the rent as capital, if they leased under the powers of the Act; and it can hardly be contended that one fourth is too large a proportion for a reasonable man to capitalise from a rental of so wasting a character as mine rental.

It is also submitted that the " contrary intention" referred to in section 11 of the Settled Land Act, 1882 (that is, an intention contrary to the capitalisation of any portion of the mine rent), can be taken to have been expressed in settlements made before as well as after 1882. Mr. Justice Pearson had no difficulty in discovering such an intention in a Settlement dated in 1856. Sec, re the Duke of Newcastle's Estates, 24 Ch. Div., 129, and the same principle was recognised in re Garnett Orme and Hargreaves Contract, 25 Ch. Div., 595.

10. (19,480.)

It is submitted that the difficulties suggested would 11. (19,484—98.) be removed, without any undue interference with the rights of property, if the effect of section 11 of the Settled Land Act could be reversed by legislation as regards future settlements so as to provide that, unless a contrary intention is shown in such settlements, no tenant for life granting mining leases under the powers of the Act should be required to capitalise any portion of the income.

The principle upon which short leases are objected 12. (19,493.) to (where the shortness of the lease does not prevent the coal from being worked) leads logically to the prohibition of all leases of mines, and to forcing the colliery owner to purchase the fee simple rather than to any alteration of the power of leasing. In all settle.

ments, practically, there is now power to sell the fee simple, and a sale would produce no injustice as between tenant for life and remainderman. The object of capitalisation is, while offering to the colliery owner the convenience of a lease instead of obliging him to purchase, to preserve in a rough way the equities between tenant for life and remaindermen.

As before observed the difficulty here referred to does not necessarily exist with regard to settlements made either before or after 1882.

With reference to the observation that when a lessor accepts a surrender under the powers of the Settled Land Act (even with the view of renewing at a reduced rent) he must naturally prefer to grant the new lease under the limited power in his own settlement rather than under the more extensive powers of the Act, so as to avoid the necessity of capitalisation, it may be pointed out that it is expressly provided by s. 13, sub-sec. 6 of the Act, that when a surrender is accepted with the view of granting a new lease, such new lease shall be in conformity with the Act.

Reference is made to a question as to whether a tenant for life can, on accepting a surrender and granting a new lease under the Act, allow "shorts" which may have accrued under the old lease to be carried over to the new lease, but it seems quite clear that such a course can, in many cases, be legally taken, having regard to the provisions of the Act (sec. 13, ss. 4) to the effect that on a surrender and now lease the value of the lessee's interest may be taken into account in the determination of the rent to be reserved, and of the nature of the covenants, provisions, and conditions to be inserted in the new lease.

The same provision is contained in the Settled Land Act as is contained in ordinary settlements that the rents to be reserved are to be the best that can be reasonably gotten (see Settled Land Act, s. 7, ss. 2), with the qualification that regard may be had to the circumstances of the case.'

Besides the modifications of leases which are specified as being sometimes applied for by lessees, and which limited owners find a difficulty in making, viz. :—

Reductions of rent.

Power to set off wayleave rents against dead rents. Power to carry forward "shorts" to new leases; there are many other cases in which trustees or limited owners or mortgagees with powers of sale find themselves under legal disability to act in such a way as an absolute owner would probably be willing to act,

such as

To consider applications by lessees for the waiver or modification of covenants (e.g., specific covenants to sink pits or execute works), or to reduce or suspend payment of the dead rent reserved in leases, or to accept surrenders of leases where no power of surrender is contained in the lease and no new lease is proposed to be taken; or in granting leases to reserve dead rents at varying rates, or to insert some of the clauses and provisions which are usual in leases of mines in the district in which the settled land is situate; or in selling, to deal with the minerals apart from the surface or vice versâ, or to grant easements without having recourse to the Court. There are also cases of estates held by trustees where no one has the right to exercise the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Acts, e.g., where there is a trust for accumulation of rents to be invested in the purchase of land (see re Strangways 34 Ch. Div. 423).

In all these cases it might be advantageous if the powers of trustees and limited owners could be extended so as to prevent their disabilities from interfering with the reasonable encouragement of mining enterprise; but it is submitted that trustees and limited owners should not be given the power of making concessions or arrangements with lessees which might have the effect of injuring the inheritance of their estates, except on proof to the satisfaction of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, or some other competent authority, that the rights of those entitled to the inheritance are preserved or compensated, or that the loss is equitably distributed.

There is no difficulty in a tenant for life reducing the rent during his own time. The difficulty is in binding his successors to the reduction. The necessity for reductions usually arises from a temporary and unforeseen fall in the price of coal. There is no reason why

Appendix A.

Papers handed

the remedy should be permanent when the stress is only temporary. The colliery owner, having made a bad bargain, appeals ad misericordiam to the tenant for life in possession; why should the tenant for life in by witnesses. relieve him from making out as good a case to the remaindermen, when the remainder falls in, as has been made to the tenant for life?

It is submitted that there would be great danger in 19. (19,542) allowing tenants for life in all cases the power to permit the recoupment of shorts without any control, as the probable effect of such an unlimited power might be to encourage the reservations of heavy dead rents by the tenant for life, with the view of securing to himself payment for minerals which could not possibly be worked out during his life, and so to take the benefit himself whilst throwing the burden on to the remaindermen.

It is submitted that lessees are not in any practical 22. (19.679—89.) danger of forfeiting their leases for breach of covenant, for which a money compensation would be a proper and sufficient equivalent. Under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, s. 14, no forfeiture can take place for breach of any covenant or condition in a lease (except a covenant against assignment or subletting, or a condition for forfeiture on bankruptcy, or, in the case of a mining lease, a covenant for allowing the lessor to inspect accounts and weighing machines, or to enter and inspect the mine) without reasonable notice to the lessee requiring him to remedy the breach and to make compensation in money for the breach, and his failure to remedy such breach and make such money compensation; and, if the landlord proceeds to enforce his right of re-entry, the lessee may apply to the court for relief, which the court may grant on such terms as it thinks fit. With regard to the special cases before referred to, in which the power of the court to give relief does not apply, it is submitted that they are not cases in which the breach could be fairly compensated for by a money payment. (Original signed by)

IV.

G. H. BLAKESLEY, (Barrister-at-Law).

3.-PAPER handed in by Mr. WALMESLEY on behalf of Mr. GILBERT DE L. WILLIS, Secretary to the Irish Landowners' Convention. (Question 20,230).

OBSERVATIONS on complaints made by various witnesses (as reported in the Evidence appended to the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties) as to the action of Irish landlords and mining proprietors.

Some three or four months ago, Mr. Oswald Walmesley, as Secretary to a Committee of English Mine Owners, was good enough to call my attention to the fact that some of the witnesses examined before the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, had made complaints of the action of the Irish landlords in their dealings with mining adventurers and other parties who had endeavoured to promote mining enterprise in that country.

By desire of the Executive Committee of the Irish Landowners' Convention I undertook to make inquiries into the allegations made by these witnesses, and I now beg to subjoin, for the information of the Commissioners, such

Appendix A. particulars as I have been able to obtain of the principal cases complained of.

Papers handed in by witnesses.

In making these inquiries I encountered much delay and difficulty, owing to the fact that in many cases the witnesses had made these complaints in a general and indefinite way, and without furnishing the names of the landlords whose alleged action was the subject of complaint. The result of this course having been taken is that it remains uncertain to whom some of their allegations were intended to apply. I found that it was rumoured, or supposed, that certain proprietors or landlords were indicated. Sometimes these rumours proved to be correct, and in these cases I subjoin all the information I could obtain. In other cases the landlords who were supposed to be indicated totally deny that the remarks or statements of the witnesses apply to them at all.

Silver Mines, Co. Tipperary.-Two witnesses appear to have made complaints of the action of the landlord in this case; Professor J. P. O'Reilly (11,930-42) and Mr. Thos. Baker (13,647-52). The landlord, the late Lord Dunalley, died in 1885, and the principal matters complained of occurred from 25 to 30 years ago (Q. 11,932).

The royalty charged was one-seventeenth upon the net produce, paid in money at the pit's mouth (Qs. 13,649–51), and the witnesses differ as to its character. Professor O'Reilly (Q. 11,933) says it was "a royalty, small in itself, "but which just turned the scale from profit into loss.' Mr. Baker (Q. 13,649) considers that the royalty was not excessive. The actual amount received by the landlord for royalties during the period when the mine was worked is shown in the following extract from the estate books, which has been furnished to me by Mr. Maurice C. Maude, the agent of Lord Dunalley's estates :

Both witnesses agree in making complaint of the fact (which is not disputed) that the landlord demanded a fine of 10,000l. for a renewal of the lease or take-note, but there are important discrepancies in their evidence.

Professor O'Reilly says (Q 11,935) that the application for a renewal was made in 1867 or 1868; that (Q. 11,934) the company was then "at the bottom of its resources,' and that their lease had expired; and (Q. 11,935) he imputes that the company had to be wound up immediately, owing to the landlord's demand.

On the other hand, Mr. Baker says (Q. 13,645) that the company was not wound up till 1873, and (Q. 13,652) that the application for a renewal was made while the lease had still seven or eight years to run. He also says (Q. 13,647) that great difficulties were experienced owing to the hardness of the rock, and he makes the important admission that those difficulties might have been avoided, I think, by another course of mining."

66

66

At this distance of time it appears to be impossible to obtain minute particulars as to the reasons or objects which the late Lord Dunalley had in view in demanding this fine of 10,000l., but there seemed to be no doubt that his main object was not to extort an unreasonable fine, but to give effect to his own views on matters which had long been in controversy between him and the company as to the best methods for carrying on the business successfully. The agent of the estate has favoured me with the following memorandum on the subject:

:

"From what I recollect the company was not considered in a solvent state for some time before the collapse. The closing of the concern was attributed to the expensive methods of manufacture, and bad management.

"It was pretty well known in the neighbourhood that there was a difference of opinion among the directors as to the advisability of carrying on the works, as the produce of the calamine would not pay the working expenses; and we were satisfied that this was the true state of the case, as the company closed their works some years before the expiration of the lease, and had for a considerable time failed to pay any royalty, though the royalty was small.— (Signed) Maurice C. Maude. 27th April, 1892."

Clough Colliery, Co. Kilkenny.-It is understood (though not directly stated) that this is the colliery referred to in Q.12,035-6, 12,041-5. The witness (Mr. J. McC. Meadows) states that two English gentlemen, "ignorant of the circumstances of the coalfield," took a lease of it at a rent of 2,000l. a year, and that the lease contained no clause of surrender except upon the exhaustion of the workable coal.

If the venture had proved profitable the case would apparently not have been mentioned; but it turned out to be a bad bargain, and Mr. Meadows appears to contend that the landlord was in some way to blame because he received a certain amount (estimated by the witness at between 6,000l. and 7,0007.) for rent during the series of years in which the pit was worked. The landlord died about ten years ago, and the property passed to another branch of his family, and details of the original negotiations are apparently not now obtainable. Mr. Meadows, however, admits (Q. 12,036) that when the rent was proved to be excessive it was reduced from 2,000l. to 1,3007., and ultimately to 6007.

The present agent of this estate is Mr. Philip O'Reilly, D.L., and any information now obtainable will be found in the following letter from him :

Colamber, Rathowen, Westmeath, "25th April, 1892.

"In reply to your letter of 23rd inst., enclosing a précis of the evidence given by Mr. Meadows, as to the