MR. LLOYD-MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.)I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that between 70 and 80 Members of this House signed a memorial to him in August, 1890, asking that the royalty on mines royal should be charged upon the profits, and not the pro-duets of such mines, he will consider, and, if practicable, give effect to, the resolution of the Mining Section of the London Chamber of Commerce passed last week, that, in the opinion of that section, royalties on all royal metal-liferous mines should be paid on profits, and not on products?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover SquareI wish to remind the hon. Member that I think I have twice or three times during the last fortnight, 1458 in reply to similar questions, stated that my mind is open upon the question, but that I could not come to any decision until the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties have reported. That Commission is inquiring into the matter, and I think it would be premature to come to any decision until we have the evidence taken by them and their Report before us.
§ MR. T. ELLIS (Merionethshire)I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount of the costs of the Chancery suit which are now being recovered at the instance of the Crown from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil; and whether there has been any decision upon the Acts of William and Mary relating to gold and silver mines until the suit which has led to the seizure and probable sale of his property?
§ MR. KENYON (, &c.) DenbighI beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true that the Office of Woods and Forests have issued writs for the recovery of their costs in a recent, action against the junior Member for Merthyr; and whether the properties attached are the private property of the hon. Member?
§ MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that two freehold estates belonging to the junior Member for Merthyr have been levied upon for the payment of costs in an action brought by the Attorney General to restrain the defendant from working for precious metals on his own land; and whether the defendant has repeatedly offered to pay any proportion of the profits which, in the opinion of the Government, may be reasonable by way of royalty to the State, but that such offers have always been refused?
§ MR. GOSCHENPerhaps I may be allowed to answer these three questions at the same time. The amount of the costs in the suit are about £400. I am not aware that there has been a decision before under the Acts of William and Mary. Writs have been issued for the recovery of the costs in the recent action against the junior Member for Merthyr, and the properties attached are prasumed to be the private property of the hon. Member. The hon. Member has offered to pay royalties in proportion 1459 to profits as distinguished from the present system of mining royalties. I would wish to add to this answer to the specific question put to me, that I have several times been in communication with the hon. Member, and he has urged that the question of the payment of the costs incurred by him should be made to depend on a change in the present royalty system. I was compelled to inform him that it could not be so treated, and I pointed out to him that there was a judgment against him, and that he should pay those costs in the ordinary way. It is with the greatest possible regret that the Department proceeded in this matter, but they had no choice, and the hon. Member preferred to pay by execution rather than in the ordinary way.
§ MR. DAVID THOMASI wish to ask whether it is the fact that the sale is to take place on Saturday, or whether it is the intention of the Government to carry it into effect?
§ MR. GOSCHENI am not aware that that is the date fixed, but I do most earnestly request any hon. Members who may have influence with the hon. Member to point out to him that he is putting himself in a false position by compelling the Government to levy for costs which have been given against him in a Court of Law. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests have given as much time as possible, and I have endeavoured by every means in my power to obviate the necessity of the extreme step of execution, and I do trust it will be possible for the hon. Member so to act as to avoid the necessity for further procedure.
§ MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN—A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil)I crave the indulgence of the House for a very few moments to ask for what I consider a very necessary explanation from the Government in regard to the action of the Commissioners of Wood and Forests towards myself. I will state to the House nothing but bare facts, and the House will judge for itself whether I have a cause of complaint or not. In 1884 I went to North Wales, and I worked there for three years, and expended my capital and my energies without any interference 1460 whatever on the part of the Crown. I had no information from them, although it was well known what I was doing. In 1888, having erected machinery, and admitting—as I do admit—that I knew the condition of the law, I anticipated that no sane Government would for a moment attempt to stop the development of industry in any part of this country. Having expended many thousands of pounds, I was drawn into the Court of Chancery because I would not submit to what I could prove before any competent tribunal were most unjust and iniquitous charges. I offered to pay to the Crown any proportion of the profits they might choose to charge me. I left it to their consciences whether they would charge me half the profits; but I explained to them that it was impossible for me in justice to the industry and to myself to pay the proportion they wanted. I will not trouble the House with examples to show why we cannot pay this royalty. Any hon. Gentleman acquainted with the mining industry knows the fact that we simply cannot do it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh told the House three years ago that two-thirds of the mines in the Colony of Victoria were shut up in consequence of the law passed some years ago by which they were charged 1s. 6d. an ounce on the value of the gold produced. Well, Sir, we went into Court and the case has lasted for three year. Sixty thousand pounds were locked up in land for that period of time, for there was an injunction against me to restrain me working these lands. The case came on, and Mr. Justice North said:—
Although it may be that you have cause of complaint I can only administer the law as I find it, and there is another place where you can obtain a remedy and there you may be able to obtain it when an opportunity presents itself.The opportnnity never has presented itself, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Member for Denbighshire and other gentlemen waited upon him six years ago, directly after he came into office, to explain that it was impossible to carry on the industry in this way, then and all this time since we have only obtained from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a promise to consider the question. The right hon. Gentleman, 1461 however, did promise to give his immediate attention to it as soon as the Mining Section of the London Chamber of Commerce had held their meeting and come to a resolution on the subject. A fortnight ago they did pass such a resolution, and in answer to a question the right hon. Gentleman said—I am aware of the fact that they have passed this resolution, but I must wait till the Royal Commission have presented their Report. The result was that last week we were compelled to discharge 60 men, all of them men who were desirous of providing for their wives and families, in North Wales, in consequence of not being able to treat these low-grade ores, where these men are employed, and from which they get a livelihood. Between 70 and 80 Members of this House, 30 of them sitting on the other side of the House, and one of them on the Treasury Bench, signed a memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to consider this matter, and to charge any royalty he liked upon profits, but not upon products. He paid no heed whatever. I have been in correspondence with him. It is perfectly true he explained he could not allow the question of payment of these costs to be a condition precedent to the granting of one of three alternatives which I have proposed. The alternatives are (1) that he shall take such a share of the profits, instead of the products, as he and his advisers shall decide upon; (2) that he should reduce the amount of royalty to about a half; and (3)—and this suggestion was followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt)—that a small nominal royalty should be charged upon the product from now until such time, say five or seven years, when it would be proved what the industry could carry, and what it could pay. These are the explanations which I have to make with regard to my nonpayment of the costs, and the Crown may proceed to sell my property, for I will never voluntarily pay the costs.
§ (3.5.) MR. GOSCHENI do not know how far I am entitled to reply to the hon. Gentleman, who I thought was about to make a personal explanation with regard to his non-payment of costs, but who has entered into a discussion on the general policy of the Government. I may say I cannot at all accept the narrative which has been put before the 1462 House by the hon. Gentleman. There are many particulars in which I dissent from it. I have given my attention to the matter, and have found it an extremely difficult one to deal with, and so difficult has it been considered by the House that it has been referred to the Royal Commission as one of the questions of Mining Royalties. In that case I must say, hoping soon to have the Report of that Commission, that it appears to me to be but light to await the issue of that Report. But I may say that in the interval—and I think the hon. Member ought to have stated it—there have been concessions made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who have offered a scale charging very little indeed upon the low ore. The very point which the hon. Member suggests ought to be done has been done, and I believe I am right in my recollection that that very scale has been accepted by others, and is now in practice in some quarters.
§ (3.10.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I understand this Royal Commission is about to present its Report, and that Report will deal with this question one way or the other—is there any reason why the Crown should not postpone the question of costs, which, after all, is an optional question, and one of equity, until the Report of the Royal Commission has been presented?
§ (3.12.) MR. GOSCHENI am rather surprised to hear such a suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman. I think he is scarcely sufficiently aware of the whole of the legal proceedings which have taken place and the general transactions between the hon. Member and the Government. The question of these costs is apart from any change in the law; and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a proper precedent to set, that anyone may try an action and then refuse to pay the costs unless the law, against which he was acting, were repealed, and that the question of the payment of those costs should be made dependent on a change in that law. I must say I think it would not promote the interests of justice and the course of judicial proceedings if such a precedent as the right hon. Gentleman suggests was set up. I am extremely sorry, as I said before, at 1463 the position I am placed in with regard to this matter.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! This matter cannot go any further. The hon. Gentleman rose upon a matter of personal explanation, because he thought some reflection might be cast upon him for refusing to pay the costs of the judicial proceedings. I think the hon. Member has already given sufficient personal explanation.