Comment posted Does Crown Estate lack rights to ‘Mines Royal’ on which Commissioners exact licence fees? by Andrew Winter.
Some interesting and thought provoking research. Will be interesting to see how this progresses given the many authorities involved wanting to just wash their hands and get rid gold panning in the UK. It always strikes me when I see tarmac roads and shingle mountain bike tracks being laid in forests for the good of tourism, leaving long term dammage to the environment, yet the poor gold panner gets hammered for small temporary changes in a river often repaired naturally during the next down pour of rain.
Has the Crown come back with any response to your work Brian?
powered by SEO Super Comments
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was some sort of Sales Descriptions Act to cover cases of blatant misrepresentation by our various levels of government? – The Crown Estate is so very clearly not what it purports to be that it, together with its ‘Commissioners’, should be the first for the chop.
There’s precedent; there was a time when development of ‘Crown Land’ was exempt from planning approval, and any ‘Crown’ institution could do more or less what it liked – for example, add another storey on Lochgilphead phone exchange without having to bother about the appearance because ‘notification’ replaced ‘consultation’. Not any more, and the discredited concept of government ‘Crown’ activities being somehow beyond challenge should be overturned for once and for all – the official use of ‘Crown’ should be redefined to stop the abuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
According to John Calvert (The gold rocks of Britain and Ireland, 1853), in Ireland “The Mines Royal claims extend, however, only to the pale, though some affirm that it would include the greater part of Ireland” (p.172). Later he describes the legal background to the claims, and the seizure of the Wicklow diggings (p.282-3)
http://books.google.com/books?id=9bxOAAAAMAAJ&dq=gold%20rocks&source=gbs_book_other_versions
The Mineral Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 covers “all minerals” and “all mines”, with various exemptions including “minerals vested in Her Majesty”. It probably wouldn’t make much difference whether the (NI) Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment owned the gold, or the Crown Estate.
I can’t help thinking that the Crown Estate is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, which should be ditched at the first opportunity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Brian Wright’s slite on our gold panning association could not be more wrong. Since Mr Wrights continued digging on the Afon Wen, and the resulting restriction on any licences
being granted by the Crown. None of our members have entred the area. Restricting hobby panning activity to known legal areas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just to be clear – much of the content of this article relates to the legal position in England and Wales. Mines Royal is an English crown right (applying also to Wales) and the Acts referred to are pre-Union Acts of the English Parliament.
Gold rights in Scotland are part of the regalia minora and can be alienated. Indeed it is my understanding that the rights (or at least the right to issue licences) to parts of northern Argyll and Sutherland were indeed given to the Duke of Argyll following the 1745 uprising although such rights appear to be administered today by the Crown Estate Commissioners since they have granted an exploration licence for the sited currently being explored by Scotgold near Tyndrum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Andy Wightman: It does indeed relate to Welsh and English law. We are currently looking at the position in Scots law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Firstly, Jason is missing the point. The Crown has no right to issue panning licences on non-Crown land, so there can be no ‘restriction’ as such. Yes, I have criticised his association, but mainly because it is not advising its members correctly on the law, in Wales, Scotland or England. My brief demonstration on the Wen has also effectively established that traditional panning does not cause damage to aquatic species, especially where spawning conditions are entirely absent, as appears to be the case on the Wen and much of the Mawddach. Jason’s association has caved in to official intimidation in Wales, because it always believed that Crown panning licences were required. As the CEC has hardly ever issued any panning licences in the UK, his association’s forty or so members have always knowingly been operating outside the law as they understood it. They should now welcome the discovery that only the consent of the freeholder is needed to take any minerals. The Forestry Commission in Wales is not the mineral rights owner, as it merely leases all of the gold bearing areas. I am told that the true freeholder may be untraceable, the deeds having apparently been lost. Hence, panning river gold in Wales may effectively be like picking blackberries. The position across Scotland is very different of course. Most of the association’s panners operate in Scotland, so they would benefit from a throrough examination of the legal background north of the border.
The CEC’s claim to Mines Royal in Scotland does indeed appear to be wrongly based on the English Acts and the 1568 Case of Mines. CEC’s blurb ignores the Scottish 1424 & 1592 Royal Mines Acts. These civil servants presumed ownership of all gold and silver in any form, throughout the UK, because no-one challenged them. The 1424 Act did not apply to river gold at all, only ores from mines of a certain quality. I have not yet been able to find the full text of the 1592 Act, but it is still in force. However, even if the right to ores was abolished in 1592 but is still ‘inter regalia’ in some sense, this would not extend to river gold or gold and silver generally in Scotland, only those limited kinds of ores described in the 1424 Act.
I can find no evidence that the Crown Prerogative in Scotland or England/Wales ever extended to copper, iron, lead and tin, and the 1568 Case of Mines only ruled on gold and silver found in base ores. If the Monarch had indeed a prerogative to all ores before 1688, there would have been no need for the 1568 Case. Therefore, the CEC’s claims appear to be based on presumptions not supported by either legislation or case law.
Below are the extracts from CEC website and Wikipedia.
Brian Wright Treasurer Gold Rivers Trust
From the CEC website
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’.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Royal Mines Act 1424 was an act of the Parliament of Scotland (1424 c. 12) stating that gold and silver mines containing ore above a certain value would belong to the king.
This made such mines inter regalia under Scots law (that is, property belonging to the sovereign), and by the phrasing of the act lead mines were also included when the ore from those mines produced the requisite amount of silver.
The effects of this act were negated by the Mines and Metals Act 1592 (1592 c. 31), which dissolved mines from the sovereign but did not change their status as inter regalia.[1]
The act in its entirety is as follows: [2]
Item, of any gold and silver mines that are found in any lord’s lands of the realm, and it may be proved that three halfpennies may be refined of silver from a pound of lead, the lords of the parliament consent that such mines shall be the king’s, as is the custom in other realms.
The act was passed by the Parliament at Perth on 26 May 1424 in the reign of James I, and was titled “Of mynis of golde and silver”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks Jo
It is not unusual for someone with new ideas to meet opposition from the old guard in any area of interest. However, I have mainly been encouraged by some really warm and positive support from panners and miners from all over the world, mainly in private messages on other forums. So the odd sort who just wants to take potshots at me, based on misguided ideas hardly bothers me. I take any searching questions in good humour and I am prepared to debate fairly. But some people don’t seem to realise that wild allegations just harm everyone’s interests, because the various authorities who have acted in such a prejudical manner are happy to see a few guys stirring up trouble in the panning fraternity. I know that most panners are good guys and gals who aren’t interested in this bickering. They don’t belong to any association, they just want to spend the odd weekend panning in a lovely river and are happy with a few flakes. These are the people that Gold Rivers Trust is trying to support and advise on this complex area of land law. The bickering element are either non panners who just love causing trouble, or those who can’t actually get out there and who want to stop others out of sheer jealousy, or a few professionals who want the rivers to themselves. It suits the latter to pretend that panning has somehow been banned in the whole of North Wales. The fear they have created has driven many up to Scotland, where there have been rumours of ounces coming out of certain rivers. These rumours have been spread by the professionals who run what I call courses for the gullible. A number of oldtimers I have spoken to recently have confirmed that there are no ounces, just the normal sparse flakes. The big scam is how jewellery companies in Wales and Scotland are selling so called Welsh gold or Scottish gold, which cannot be verified to be Welsh or Scottish. There is a high possibility that much of this native coarse gold is imported from Australia, USA and Canada, and refined without any formal assay. The public are being duped and this must be stopped. Panners are being given a bad name by these dubious practices, when most don’t want to sell their little bottles full of real Welsh or Scottish metal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It has just occured to me that Ken Wightman is very probably a made up name, easily confused with Andy Wightman, the well known campaigner. I hope Andy hasn’t been inconvenienced by this bizarre ‘coincidence’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: National Park Authority to approve Cononish Gold Mine operation | For Argyll
Some interesting and thought provoking research. Will be interesting to see how this progresses given the many authorities involved wanting to just wash their hands and get rid gold panning in the UK. It always strikes me when I see tarmac roads and shingle mountain bike tracks being laid in forests for the good of tourism, leaving long term dammage to the environment, yet the poor gold panner gets hammered for small temporary changes in a river often repaired naturally during the next down pour of rain.
Has the Crown come back with any response to your work Brian?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks Andrew, and good points made. In apologetic late answer to your question I have been pressing the Crown Estate bods to own up to misapplication of their repealed powers in both England/Wales and Scotland. However, they are hardly likely to own up to their misdeeds. The CE, probably having been advised by its lawyers to leave well alone, has in effect left the Countryside Council for Wales, the Forestry Commission and the EA to enforce the weakly worded so called ban, with no money or political resolve to back it up. The result is that local panners and some visitors continue to pan on the Mawddach and Wen, and the FC, supposed to police them, can’t be bothered. They are quite happy to tolerate this low level activity, as long as professionals like Kit Andrews, Vince Thurkettle, ‘Aussie Paul’ and other well known characters stay away. However, the FC also tolerates convicted fraudsters like Barkley Price and his mates to carry on as usual. I repeat my offer to the Welsh Assembly to assist a full scale inquiry into possible corruption by the FC, CCW and EA. After all, CCW has benefited from Euro grants of hundreds of millions of pounds for its so called SSSI sites, which to my mind are works of fiction. These highly paid civil servants achieve nothing, accuse others of non-existent crimes, and destroy the tourism in N Wales which they are bound by National Park laws to protect. Sack the lot of them and start again I say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fascinating stuff; good article and interesting elaboration from Mr Wright.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a fascinating read. I wish you all the best in your search for justice Mr Brian Wright. I shall be keeping a close eye on further proceedings in the future.
Regards
Graham
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks Graham, and again my apologies for the late reply. This story continues to develop, as the CEC is still wearing the blinkers on its head in the sand, despite my optimisticalism that the new lady CEO would bring a new broom to sweep them away. Sleepwalking fraud I’d call it, and some day soon a whistleblower will wake up and scream murder!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0