# Freedom to Mine British Gold



## Waulespan (Jun 9, 2011)

MINES ROYAL ABOLISHED

Following further discoveries since the story was published on ForArgyll.com I am now absolutely confident that the Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC) have no claim on any native gold or gold or silver ores in England and Wales. 

This means that any person should be free by law, with consent from landowners to prospect for gold and silver on land not in the control of the Crown Estate Commissioners. I must now explore under what powers the Commissioners hold those lands they currently claim!

This news is obviously a big shock to the Crown Estate Commissioners, who, if I am correct, have been a bunch of conmen to different degrees since 1969, 1891, 1867, 1693, 1689 (in respect of three Acts of Parliament) and 1688. Never mind the possibly fraudulent claims against the citizens of England and the World perpetrated by the greedy Elizabeth 1st and her heirs and predecessors.

First, I read and made a Word copy of The Times report on the case Attorney-General v Pritchard Morgan, 1891. I can send any interested reader the Word doc separately, but I have summarized below my views on the effect of the case today. I must credit GW Hall for bringing the case to my attention in his book The Gold Mines of Merioneth 1975 (pg 90). A friend of Mr Hall has copied my essay to Mr Hall for his opinion. 

It seemed very odd that the CEC did not refer directly to the case in the Notes to the Crown Estate Act 1961. As we are already aware, 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. Are the Notes wrong, or is the CEC hiding some relevant insight? 

However, the judges failed to consider a 1867 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. By leasing copper and low grade gold mines as Mines Royal, the CEC is ignoring its own official 1961 Notes and the 1969 repeal. 

The following short essay outlines the 1867 & 1969 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 may lie 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) in 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 argument (my ‘any ore’ theory in fact) was sound. It was, but only if he had been aware of the 1867 repeal of the Mint clause. His operation at Gwynfynydd could not afford further delay, so he rushed ahead. The 1891 Appeal decision was, therefore deeply flawed and limited in its application. Due to his sadly incompetent handling of his own case, Morgan lost his house at Brynterion in lieu of costs. This was to be a stark warning for the mine owners who did not understand the complex background to this deeply flawed 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 properly 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. 

Shame on the UK government for its decision to ignore the fraudulent and illegal theft of the peoples' rights.

Brian Wright Treasurer Gold Rivers Trust


----------



## martyn111 (Jun 10, 2011)

http://www.aditnow.co.uk/community/viewtopic.aspx?t=5641&pid=1


May I add that Boruboy (In the link above) and waulespan are the same person.
It would appear that he is trying to drum up support for his activities on the Welsh panning rivers which have caused a total ban on panning in these areas. 
I will not comment further on this subject and leave you the reader to decide on this mans credibility.


----------



## Waulespan (Jul 15, 2011)

martyn111 said:


> http://www.aditnow.co.uk/community/viewtopic.aspx?t=5641&pid=1
> 
> 
> May I add that Boruboy (In the link above) and waulespan are the same person.
> ...



Oh dear Martyn, you have fallen for the false propaganda that panning has been banned in all Welsh panning rivers. There is no ban, only a warning not to damage sensitive wildlife on just two SSSI rivers, which have no relevant wildlife in them to damage. The whole situation is an official farce. Guys are still panning there, especially at weekends, out of sight mainly. I have a couple of private agreements with farmers, out of the SSSI areas. CCW has confirmed they have no problem with this, so I am safe to continue. Now, were you not one of those who were panning on the Mawddach yourself, just below the Tyn-y-Groes Hotel? If so, you were in full public view. That was actually a much bigger cause of complaint than my location on the Wen. And you have to admit that a few local guys were digging much bigger holes than me in 2010 just above and below the Wen bridge. But you haven't singled them out, why? Maybe because it is easier to scapegoat one person for the activities of many. There were many guys jumping into my small digs when I left, so when I returned I had to fill their holes in, if the river hadn't done it first. Take a look at my last dig now, just behind the fallen tree bole. No sign of any dig whatsoever, it all looks perfectly natural. A steep bedrock slope and a loose gravel bank built up around the bole. Panners who attack others on forums for non-existent bans and holes big enough to drop cars into and tons of bedrock being dug up and mussels and otters being killed, when these things never happened, doesn't do anyone any good.
The only thing you have to worry about is the FC byelaws, and the FC aren't enforcing these byelaws. Panning was always a daredevil kind of activity in the Coed y Brenin. If you give up just because of a few misleading signs and rumours of a ban which the EA has confirmed on tv doesn't exist, you aren't very daring. Join Gold Rivers Trust and support the campaign to get panning recognition across the UK.
Hope this helps.
Brian


----------

