The right to mines of silver and gold is vested in the Crown by virtue of the royal prerogative. Blackstone says that this right has its origin in the King s prerogative of coinage, in order to supply him with materials. Subject to this right in respect of royal mines, all mines and minerals are prima facie the property of the owner of the soil, though in the case of copyholds it is the lord of the manor who entitled to them. The extent of the prerogative of the Crown has been the subject of important legislation and litigation, the occasion therefor being the fact that gold and silver are found with, or may be extracted from, other ores. By the old common law, if gold or silver was found in mines of base metal, then according to the opinion of some the whole was a royal mine, and belonged to the King ; though others held that it did so only if the quantity of gold or silver was of greater value than the quantity of base metal. A statute of Henry IV. adopted the former opinion, but it had the effect of preventing in this kingdom the extraction of gold and silver out of other ores, and of causing metallurgy to be mainly practised abroad. Two remedial statutes were therefore passed in the reign of William and Mary, and these statutes remain in force at the present day. Their net result is to provide, in the first place, that no mine of copper, tin, iron, or lead shall be taken to be a royal mine, even though gold or silver may be extracted thereout ; but the King can have the ore of any such mine in any part of England and Wales, other than tin ore in the counties of Devon or Cornwall ; he must, however, pay the owners therefor at certain specified rates, and do so within thirty days after the ore is laid upon the banks of the mine, and before it is removed. The specified rates are : " for all ore washt, made clean, and merchantable, wherein is copper, the rate of £16 per ton ; and for all ore ivasht, made clean, and merchantable, wherein there is tin, the rate of 40s. per ton ; and for all ore washt, made clean, and merchantable, wherein there is iron, the rate of 40s. per ton ; and for all ore washt, made clean, and merchantable, wherein there is lead, the rate of £9 per ton," In default of payment of these sums the owners may sell and dispose of the ore at their absolute discretion. The concession introduced by these statutes does not apply to a mine which is worked simply as a gold mine, even though the gold is found mixed with the ores of the baser metals, if the quantity of the latter is so small as to be valueless for the purpose of working. In such a case the ancient prerogative of the Crown remains un affected, and the mine cannot be worked by a subject, even on his own land, without the licence of the Crown. This was decided in Attorney-General v. Morgan, wherein it was also held that in cases to which the above statutes apply, the Crown cannot be called upon to exercise its statutory right of pre-emption until the ore has been washed and made clean and merchant able. It is not sufficient to offer the Crown quartz rock in the rough just as brought up from the mine.
Exception of mines and minerals.—It is not unusual to find sales and purchases of hind without minerals thereunder. In such cases the minerals are said to be reserved, or, more correctly, excepted. A purchaser of land under an open contract, or one which does not except the minerals, is generally entitled to a conveyance including the minerals, or to compen sation for their absence. And this is so where the minerals have been already workeJ out, provided the purchaser did not know of the fact. The object of the exception is to keep the minerals in the hands of parties other than those who own the soil. The owners of the minerals can then sell and work them without reference to the owners of the soil. As a rule the ex
ception is of "mines and minerals" merely. But, according to circumstances, the exception is expressed by a more specific and extensive wording. Thus it may be of " mines, ores, minerals, coal, limestone, or slate," or of "mines or seams of coal, and other mines, metals or minerals," or of "all mines of coal, culm, iron, and all other mines and minerals whatsoever except stone quarries." The more precise the wording of the exception the less room for doubt is there as to the substances actually intended to be excepted. Generally speaking, minerals mean substances of a mineral character which can only be worked by means of mines as distinguished from quarries. Accord ingly in Darvill v. Roper, where the exception was of "the mines of lead and coal and other mines and minerals," it was held that the owner of the soil could not be pievented from quarrying limestone out of the surface. But on the other hand, in Hart v. GM it was decided that beds of limestone are included in the definition of " mines and minerals" whether got by quarry ing or surface work. It can therefore be easily understood that it is impos sible to give any precise definition of mines and minerals from the point of view of their exception from a grant of land, and the relative rights of the respective owners of the soil and of the minerals. The actual wording of the particular exception must first be considered, and, as already pointed out, this differs very materially in different instances. Then when the word ing is known it is necessary to read it in the light of the many decided cases. Stones got from quarries have been decided to be minerals ; so also have stones used for mending roads and worked by quarrying from the surface ; and so have coprolites beneath the surface of copyhold land. A bed of clay upon which a railway has been made has been held to be a mine ; and brick-earth too, which could be got from underneath. And slate works have come within the definition of a mine, it being in that case laid down that the definition depended upon the mode of working, and not upon the substance obtained from the mine.
Leases of mines are incidentally referred to under the heading LEASE, and also in various other articles. A party who contracts for the lease of a mine cannot resist its performance on the ground of his ignorance of mining matters and of the mine turning out worthless. If the intending lessee of a mine takes possession of it he does not thereby accept the title. Time is of the essence of the contract in an agreement for a lease of a mine. This is so because of the fluctuating nature of the property, and an intending lessee may therefore fix a reasonable time for completion, and on the lessor's default may rescind the contract. The lessee of a mine, although entitled to rely upon the existence of the property, takes all risk of its failure, whether of quantity or value, unless either is expressly warranted. So long, therefore, as any part of the property exists he cannot abandon it, though he may perhaps be entitled to a reduction. But because a mine is merely " unworkable to profit " the lessee does not thereby acquire a right to a reduction or 'co throw up his lease. As to the usual covenants in a mining lease, it was decided in illakesley v. Whieldon that whether an agreement for a lease does or does not provide that the usual covenants shall be inserted in the lease, each party is entitled to have such covenants inserted therein as are incidental to and necessary to protect the rights given to or reserved to each. Accordingly, under an agreement for a lease of minerals, the payments to be accelerated with an increase in the quantity of work, it was held that the lessor was impliedly entitled to have a right of entry and inspection secured to him by the lease.