[x] Welcome at THunting.com!

A fun place to talk about Metal Detecting, Treasure Hunting & Prospecting. Here you can share finds and experience with thousands of members from all over the world

Join us and Register Now - Its FREE & EASY

THunting.com
Treasure Hunting & Metal Detecting Community
   
Advanced Search
*
Welcome, Guest! Please login or register HERE - It is FREE and easy.
Only registered users can post and view images on our message boards.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
Or Login Using Social Network Account
2
News:
Pages:  1 2 3   Go Down
Print
Share this topic on FacebookShare this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on Twitter
Tags:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline Ridge RunnerTopic starter
Mod
Platin Member
*****

Join Date: Jul, 2010
Thank you308

Activity
1%
Male
Posts: 7427
Referrals: 0

27420.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« on: June 08, 2011, 07:10:16 am »
Go Up Go Down

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
Offline GoldDigger1950
The Old Man and the Soil
Global Moderator
Platin Member
*****

Just call me GD.
The Old Man and the Soil
Join Date: Jun, 2009
Thank you205

Activity
0%
Male
United States
Posts: 11166
Referrals: 12

47578.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards

Garrett Groundhog ADS, Garrett Sea Hunter, Bounty Hunter Tracker IV, Bounty Hunter Pioneer 505,Minelab Eldorado Mk II, Tesoro Compadre, Tesoro Tiger Shark & A Few Home Brew Detectors
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2011, 03:45:29 pm »
Go Up Go Down

That's sort of good news but it could be better. Releasing crown land would be even better. We all know that the crown itself is never going to prospect there so what are they thinking? The resources will only come to the benefit if the country and the people if it is out of the ground, not left there for future generations who also can't remove it by law.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. But what else can one expect from bureaucrats? Rhetorical question.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg180722.html#msg180722




Logged

It's all about that moment when metal that hasn't seen the light of day for generations frees itself from the soil and presents itself to me.
Let's Talk Treasure!

Offline BitburgAggie_7377
Klugheit und Verstandnis
Platin Member
*

Define Treasure
Klugheit und Verstandnis
Join Date: Jul, 2009
Thank you94

Activity
100%

United States
Posts: 9194
Referrals: 0

25835.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards

GTAx1250, Fisher F4, White's Classic 5 ID, Fisher Impulse , Tesoro Lobo SuperTraq
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2011, 03:50:35 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by GoldDigger1950
That's sort of good news but it could be better.


Well, I'll take the good news for now, celebrate it, and say keep up the good work...go "fight" for the better.   Incrementalism got us into most of our current messes regardless of what country we live in or what messes we're talking about.   As much as I'd like to see the wrongs righted immediately, I'll settle for winning our rights back one small step at a time if that's what it takes.

BA


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg180728.html#msg180728




Logged
Offline GoldDigger1950
The Old Man and the Soil
Global Moderator
Platin Member
*****

Just call me GD.
The Old Man and the Soil
Join Date: Jun, 2009
Thank you205

Activity
0%
Male
United States
Posts: 11166
Referrals: 12

47578.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards

Garrett Groundhog ADS, Garrett Sea Hunter, Bounty Hunter Tracker IV, Bounty Hunter Pioneer 505,Minelab Eldorado Mk II, Tesoro Compadre, Tesoro Tiger Shark & A Few Home Brew Detectors
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2011, 03:54:07 pm »
Go Up Go Down

That's how we lost freedoms, BA, incrementally. First we were scorned for digging in the parks, then we were reprimanded and then they passed laws. Now, just having a metal detector in your car can be cause for authorities to take it in some places. Crazy!

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg180730.html#msg180730




Logged

It's all about that moment when metal that hasn't seen the light of day for generations frees itself from the soil and presents itself to me.
Let's Talk Treasure!

Offline BitburgAggie_7377
Klugheit und Verstandnis
Platin Member
*

Define Treasure
Klugheit und Verstandnis
Join Date: Jul, 2009
Thank you94

Activity
100%

United States
Posts: 9194
Referrals: 0

25835.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards

GTAx1250, Fisher F4, White's Classic 5 ID, Fisher Impulse , Tesoro Lobo SuperTraq
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2011, 04:09:30 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by GoldDigger1950
That's how we lost freedoms, BA, incrementally. First we were scorned for digging in the parks, then we were reprimanded and then they passed laws. Now, just having a metal detector in your car can be cause for authorities to take it in some places. Crazy!


I hear you, GD, I hear you.  Unfortunately it is also how we'll probably have to figure on getting most of 'em back unless someone has a miracle or two in their back pocket.   If we're lucky we'll get some of the worst examples of bad laws turned over in their entirety, but mostly it will have to be one step at a time.....just like stopping a freight train and then getting it rolling in the other direction.


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg180737.html#msg180737




Logged
Offline Homefire
Global Moderator
Platin Member
*****

Join Date: Jan, 2009
Thank you634

Activity
1%
Male
United States
Posts: 15906
Referrals: 0

52355.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2011, 04:35:05 pm »
Go Up Go Down

I hope you folks over in the UK can make some strides with this one.

In the case of prospecting, there whittling away access here in the U.S.A.   .

Want a laugh?   Read the whole Antiquities Act of 1906!

Did you know you can't pick and remove anything over 50 years old of Federal Controlled lands?

Now it's been INTERPITED that Meteorites fall under the Act.  LOL!

Every step we make forward, where pushed back three.   

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg180744.html#msg180744




Logged
Offline BitburgAggie_7377
Klugheit und Verstandnis
Platin Member
*

Define Treasure
Klugheit und Verstandnis
Join Date: Jul, 2009
Thank you94

Activity
100%

United States
Posts: 9194
Referrals: 0

25835.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards

GTAx1250, Fisher F4, White's Classic 5 ID, Fisher Impulse , Tesoro Lobo SuperTraq
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2011, 04:56:43 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by homefire
I hope you folks over in the UK can make some strides with this one.

In the case of prospecting, there whittling away access here in the U.S.A.   .

Want a laugh?   Read the whole Antiquities Act of 1906!

Did you know you can't pick and remove anything over 50 years old of Federal Controlled lands?

Now it's been INTERPITED that Meteorites fall under the Act.  LOL!

Every step we make forward, where pushed back three.


You know, I COULD make an reasonable arguement for protecting anything from before 1856 (50 years prior to 1906) based on the lack of photographic documentation, etc.   But the period from 1906 forward is the single best documented period in the history of the world.   If people can't figure out what happened in the US since then, they aren't trying very hard.   There is NO reason to extend this same mandate to items younger than 25% of the population.


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg180747.html#msg180747




Logged
Offline Waulespan
Bronze Member
*

Join Date: Dec, 2010
Thank you5

Activity
0%

United Kingdom
Posts: 131
Referrals: 0

665.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards

Minelab Explorer
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2011, 05:20:08 pm »
Go Up Go Down

OK boys, thanks for your positive comments. There are always loopholes in fragile man made laws.
I am trying to help a well known prospector fight in California along these lines. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness in the USA Constitution should, it really should protect small prospectors. What could be more joyful than finding bright nuggets in gray gravels? Are there no bigshot lawyers in the prospecting club in the USA and Canada? The following development may be of significance in Canada in particular.

As of today the Crown is now in a confused retreat from its mistaken sham Royal claims to all naturally occuring gold and silver in the UK, which it still claimed only a few months ago. No longer.

The Crown Estate Commission (CEC) appears to have very recently admitted that Mines Royal was abolished in England and Wales. See link below and the new, but very confused statement on the CEC website. Its like they are tearing out their hair and wondering why they are going bald!
 
What the CEC fails to also clarify is that the 1568 Case of Mines never applied to Scotland.
 
The CEC should now clarify upon what Act or ruling they are relying upon to claim the right to licence gold and silver mines in Scotland. As far as I can see, it is all Scottish Mist!

Mines Royal
Mines Royal Acts 1688 and 1693. The Argyll News published an article on 24 April 2011 claiming that Mines Royal were abolished by the Mines Royal Acts 1688 and 1693. ...

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

www.thecrownestate.co.uk/mines_royal

 
Mines Royal Acts 1688 and 1693
The Argyll News published an article on 24 April 2011 claiming that Mines Royal were abolished by the Mines Royal Acts 1688 and 1693. The Crown Estate would like to clarify that the Acts do not apply to Scotland.


This clarification is long overdue. Despite the new clarification, the CEC's website still contains the following, very misleading contradictions. 'This is true for all of the UK', is the most careless generalisation.
  

History of Mines Royal
A prerogative right to mines has been exercised by the Crown for centuries. Along with gold and silver this did at one time include copper, iron, lead and tin, but was curtailed by a seventeenth century Act of Parliament. An Act of 1688 declared that no mine of copper, tin, iron or lead should be royal mine, although gold and silver could be extracted.
The revenues were administered by the Exchequer, but passed to the Auditors of Land Revenues and, in the early nineteenth century, the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues. Today, the prerogative rights to gold and silver are part of The Crown Estate. This is true for all of the UK although in the past, in some limited areas in Scotland, this right has been transferred from the Crown by ancient charter.
So it is that mines of gold and silver continue to be referred to as the ‘Mines Royal’.
 
I predict that the CEC's website will have to be overhauled by a bigshot lawyer quite soon.
 


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg180763.html#msg180763




« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 05:39:31 pm by Waulespan »
Logged
Offline Jeff Nagy
Foil
*

Join Date: Sep, 2011
Thank you0

Activity
0%

United States
Posts: 4
Referrals: 0

20.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards

Bounty Hunter
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2011, 08:01:19 pm »
Go Up Go Down

All the talk about Royal Mines and Royal perogative got me thinking about our local, early history, here in the State of Maryland, USA.

As proprietor, Charles Calvert (Lord Baltimore) excersied authority like a king in Maryland, aswerable only to the king in England for his actions. His word was law in Maryland. In July 1722, Philemon Lloyd sent a letter to Calvert proposing a change in statute concerning mining in Maryland:

“…thirdly, that it be proposed unto his Lordship and if he think it reasonable that a new condition be annexed unto the former conditions of plantations; that all other mines except iron, which is more or less all over the country, as to lands as yet untaken up, be reserved in the grants, be reserved in like manner as the Royal Mines…This only is certain, that our woods are full of mine hunters.”

He continues, “We want skillful men; and forasmuch as the honor is done me of coming into the co-partnership, it seems very reasonable and advantageous that upon the opening and discovery of any valuable mines of lead, tin, or copper, that I should have the power of contracting with such discoverer, so as to make the mine our own, allowing to every such discoverer a proportion of their own discovery, by which means we may have under our management the greater part of the mines and may then work them at pleasure according to their goodness. Great numbers of mines or tokens of mines are found: the difficulty is finding the principle veins: which I take to be owing to the ignorance of the miners.”

Does this sound like a proposed take-over of mining in Maryland in the early to mid 18th century by Calvert?

Your comments would be welcome.


Regards,


Jeff Nagy

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg193776.html#msg193776




« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 08:16:03 pm by seldom »
Logged
Offline Waulespan
Bronze Member
*

Join Date: Dec, 2010
Thank you5

Activity
0%

United Kingdom
Posts: 131
Referrals: 0

665.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards

Minelab Explorer
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2011, 08:09:24 am »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by Jeff Nagy
All the talk about Royal Mines and Royal perogative got me thinking about our local, early history, here in the State of Maryland, USA.

As proprietor, Charles Calvert (Lord Baltimore) excersied authority like a king in Maryland, aswerable only to the king in England for his actions. His word was law in Maryland. In July 1722, Philemon Lloyd sent a letter to Calvert proposing a change in statute concerning mining in Maryland:

“…thirdly, that it be proposed unto his Lordship and if he think it reasonable that a new condition be annexed unto the former conditions of plantations; that all other mines except iron, which is more or less all over the country, as to lands as yet untaken up, be reserved in the grants, be reserved in like manner as the Royal Mines…This only is certain, that our woods are full of mine hunters.”

He continues, “We want skillful men; and forasmuch as the honor is done me of coming into the co-partnership, it seems very reasonable and advantageous that upon the opening and discovery of any valuable mines of lead, tin, or copper, that I should have the power of contracting with such discoverer, so as to make the mine our own, allowing to every such discoverer a proportion of their own discovery, by which means we may have under our management the greater part of the mines and may then work them at pleasure according to their goodness. Great numbers of mines or tokens of mines are found: the difficulty is finding the principle veins: which I take to be owing to the ignorance of the miners.”

Does this sound like a proposed take-over of mining in Maryland in the early to mid 18th century by Calvert?

Your comments would be welcome.


Regards,


Jeff Nagy


Hi Jeff

The position in Maryland would have been the same as in England at that time.
1. Any taxation by Royal Prerogative, including any restriction on mining any minerals was prohibited by the 1689 Bill of Rights.
2. All landowners had an exclusive right to mine on their own lands under the 1688 and 1693 Mines Royal Acts, except that until 1867 gold or silver extracted from copper, iron, tin or lead had to be handed to the Crown. This seldom happened, hence the 1867 repeal.
3. The Crown had a right of preemption to pay fixed prices for base ores containing gold or silver until 1969, when this unexercised right was finally abolished.

It appears, therefore that Calvert acted in breach not only of the Bill of Rights, but he also usurped landowners' mining rights which were protected under the Mines Royal Acts, which in effect abolished the Crown's claim of monopoly to all minerals under the 1568 Case of Mines.

I wonder to what extent the mining laws in each state are based on breaches of the Bill of Rights, which protected all subjects of the Crown, as well as the Mines Royal Acts?

More research needed.



Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg193918.html#msg193918




Logged
Print
Pages:  1 2 3   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2005, Simple Machines | Sitemap
Copyright THunting.com