§ Viscount Duncannonsaid, that in consequence of the question put to him on Friday evening by the noble Earl opposite, relative to the leases of certain mines in Cornwall, he had made inquiries on the subject, and he found that notice had been given to the lessees of those mines to which submarine workings were attached, that on the expiration of their leases, they would not be renewed on the present terms. The question was, whether the minerals below high water mark were the property of the persons who held the upper soil, without paying any royalty? The opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken on the question, and they had decided that the property in the sub-workings was in the Crown, and not in the individuals holding the soil. The consequence was, 1064 that proceedings would be taken against the person to whom the noble Earl had formerly alluded, and against others, amongst whom was the noble Earl himself.
§ The Earl of Falmouthsaid, the correspondence which had taken place on this subject, though it did not embrace the whole matter at issue, certainly touched upon the question, whether the property in those mines was to be excluded from the operation of the Limitation Act, which applied in other cases. When he put the question to the noble Viscount, he thought it necessary to explain generally the circumstances that had taken place, in order that no misunderstanding might arise. The circumstances out of which the correspondence with the authorities connected with the duchy of Cornwall arose occurred some years ago. Objections were then advanced against the extravagant claims put forward on the part of the Crown, and the answer to those representations was, that a bill would be brought into Parliament to settle the claims of the parties in possession. No such bill was introduced; but the persons interested were informed by Sir G. Harrison, that he disapproved of the claims asserted by the Crown, and that he repudiated them on the part of the duchy; but, though he was never inclined to urge those claims, still he would do nothing that might be considered as compromising the rights of the Crown. How stood the fact now? Why, on the introduction of the new Lords of the duchy, they found, that certain leases had expired, and they proceeded to lay claim to the submarine workings, which had been recognised time out of mind as the property of the individuals in possession. The property now in question belonged to two ladies, and from it they drew the principal part, if not the whole, of their subsistence. This was the first proceeding that had been taken, after the promises were made which he had stated; this was the first proof given of the benefit to be derived from the boasted infusion of liberalism into the management of the affairs of the duchy. What was now in progress was materially connected with what took place on a former occasion. The question simply was, whether long possession was sufficient to confirm an individual in a right to retain property which he had held unmolested and undisturbed? By the Nullum Tempus Act, the Crown was barred from claiming after a possession of sixty years. If an individual could prove, that he had held the property claimed for more than that duration of 1065 time, be made a good title against the Crown. It was endeavoured, in the case of Sir John St. Aubin, but unsuccessfully, to overthrow that doctrine. The principle now sought to be established would not be tolerated in the time of James 1st., and he did not think that it would succeed now. According to that principle it was no matter how long property might have been in the possession of a family; even if it could be shown, that undisturbed possession had been preserved for three hundred years, it would avail the possessor nothing. It might be claimed as belonging to the duchy, not withstanding the time that had elapsed; because, forsooth, the property of the duchy could not be alienated. Those who were interested in the question had been promised, that there was no intention to advance such claims, and he could tell the noble Viscount, that if it was attempted to carry out those claims in the manner intended, the attempt would be resisted to the uttermost. He (the Earl of Falmouth) was, it appeared, to be the next victim. It was the first he heard of it, and he should be prepared to oppose, by all proper means, any attempt to take the minerals from his private property. He would say, that if there were any one thing that would be more popular than another in that part of the country in which those mines were situated, it would be the bringing in of a bill to quiet and settle the possession of such property.
§ Viscount Duncannonsaid, that most of the mines in question had not been worked more than forty years. The noble Earl was not in possession of his mines for more than forty years. As the noble Earl had particularly alluded to the case of two ladies, he had no objection, if the noble Earl pleased, to try the right with him first.
§ The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that generally speaking, private individuals acquired a legal title to property by possession for twenty years. In some instances, that period was extended to thirty, and in others to fifty years. In the case of the Crown, the term was not so much narrowed. But even there, possession for sixty years was a sufficient bar to a claim on the part of the Crown. He held that the minerals in these submarine workings were indisputably his property, because he who possessed an estate, as Lord of the Manor, or otherwise, held it usque ad cœlum, usque ad imum.
§ Lord Abingerinquired whether the claim to the submarine workings was made as a common law right, or as a right of the Crown?
§ Viscount Duncannonanswered, that the claim was made to the submarine workings below high-water mark on the part of die Duchy, as appertaining to the Crown.
§ Here the conversation ended.