The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1919. BURDEN OF PRIVILEGE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10280, 15 May 1919, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1919. BURDEN OF PRIVILEGE

The., agitation of the British Miners’ federation for the nationalisation of the mines is giving rise to a great searching of titles, and no doubt also to great searchings of heart amongst the big royalty-owners at Home. A Coal Commission has been set up, and those who draw huge revenues from mineral rents and. royalties are being called upon to produce their titles and state the income they receive 'from charges levied on the mineral production of tho country. That fundamentally their titles to the mineral wealth of the British Isles are bad, is clearly indicated by tho very world “royalties,” which shows that in their origin these levies 1 were State charges on the minerals won. At one time, undoubtedly, all tho minerals in the were the progeny of . the Crown, as representing the.nation just' as the precious metals are Crown property to this day. But, by hook or by crook, the big landholders arrogated to themselves the ownership of coal, iron, lead, tin, etc., and put into their private pockets the dues that should have gone to the State. This they did with the same bold robberbaron sweep that they swept aside the old ieudal dues and services, on-, condition of which they originally held “their” land, and transferred the burden of the defence of the country, naval and military, the care of tho poor, and other public charges to the shoulders of the people as a whole; with the same bold sweep that they afterwards enclosed the commons. In the last half of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th, they fenced in the land and fenced out the commoners from no less than nine million acres of common, equal to one-third of the cultivable area of England and Wales! It is to bo hoped, therefore, that other big monopolists, besides the royalty-owners, will be called upon to show their titles, to state the incomes derived from “their” land, and to declare the unimproved value of the same for purposes of taxation. The only evidence of. any ’ note so far given before the Coal Commission appears to bo that of the Earl of Durham, who, according to the cable sum mary, said he owned 12,411 acres which were leased to colliery companies. Six thousand acres were bought within the last century and 4000 acres between 1720 and 1820. Tho remainder was ancient land owned by the Lambton family. Royalties, rents, and privileges yielded £58,911 in 1913 and £40,000 in 1918. These are enormous revenues, but they palo into comparative insignificance before the mineral rents and royalties received by tho Duke of Cleveland, the Duko of Portland, tho Earl of Derby, tho Earl of Lonsdale, tho Marquis of Bute, and others. : The Duko of Portland is said to receive in royalties from Seaton Delaval pit, Northumberland, tho cquiv.v lent of the wages of 100 every year,’ and from Ashington pit the equivalent of'tho wages of 300 miners; while from his "Westmoreland and Cumberland properties. Lord Lonsdale is estimated to draw some £200,000 a year. But tho withholding of mineral lands fi;om use is an even greater handicap to the trade .and industry of the country than the heavy rents and royalties levied on the land that is graciously allowed to bo used. The Duke of Portland, for example, holds 10,000 acres of coal-bearing land idle in the "Welbcck district alone. How great a handicap tho mineral rents and royalties constitute is shown by the statistics quoted by Mr C. M. Percy, of the "Wigan School of Mines, in a pamphlet published in 1890. The position is veiy much the same to-dny. _ Mr Percy estimated that the total mineral rents and royalties on a ton of pig-iron (including those on tho coni and limestone used in smelting the ore) amounted in France to and in Germany to 6d, while in Britain they averaged _4s Cd a ton. On shio-plates the royalties amounted to Is IJd a ton in France, to Is in Germany, and in Britain they averaged 5s 9d a ton; while on o ton. of steel rails they amounted in France to lid, in Germany to Bsd, and in Britain to 3s Cd. Mr Percy puts the average mineral rents and royalties on coal at 8d per ton, but Professor Merivalo himself a coal-owner, puts them at 51 d a ton. Professor Mcrivalo probably took tho average for NorthumWand and Durham only; but, in Wales especially, the royalties run much liighcr than in those two coun-

tics, those* on the best steam coal averaging at least £1 3s a ton. It was shown at the 1901 animal meeting of the South Durham fciteel and Iron Company that that ono concern alone paid in 1900, in mineral rents and royalties on the coal and pigiron consumed, upwards of £79,000; while the Barrow Hematite Iron Cont- | pany, which for years paid no dividend jat all, paid in royalties, etc., to Lora | Lonsdale (is 3d a ton on pig-iron. This 10s 3d per ton amounted to more than I tlio salaries and wages of the whole working staff of the company, trom the manager downwards. To compete with Germany, the company needed to reduce its working costs by 3d a ton, and the directors asked the Lari or Lonsdale to knock off the odd 3d per ton But ho refused. They then asked the workers, already underpaid, to consent to a reduction of 3d a ton in wa"ea, but they also refused; and the result was that the company gave up the enterprise, and now iorms pait ot the Billion Dollar Steel Trust ot America. Professor Alerivalo states that, averaging it over a term of years so as to eliminate fluctuations, “3 per cent, only is the net return upon the caoital invested in coal mines . at Home. He estimates that capital at Js a ton, and 3 per cent on 9s is not quite 3fd. Bo that, while the idle royaltyowners receive on the average, according to l Professor Merivale’s low estimate, oijd a ton. those who risk then capital in the enterprise and organise the whole industry get- only 3id a ton —a difference of 24d per ton in favour of those who “toil not, neither do they spin. ' A tax which would take only that extra "id per ton would yield a tidy revenue for tho State; while an equivalent lax on unused mineral lands would go far to force them into use. The classic example of the huge burden of mineral rents and royalties is, however, that of the great Atlantic liner Lusitania, sunk by the unspeakable Hun. When tho Lusitania was under full steam, she consumed, according to the “Shipping Gazette,” 70 tons of coalper hour, or 1680 tons per day of 24 hours; so that on the ten days’ round trip from Liverpool to New York and back sho consumed m all 16,800 tons. At the average of Is 3d a ton, the royalties on the 16,800 tons would amount to £IOSO, while the ten days’ wages of the entire stokehold crew amounted only toi—- £ s. d. 120 trimmers 180 0 0 192 firemen 320 0 0 21 greasers 38 10 0 Total wages for 333 men £538 10 0 Putting it as a case of man to man, the idle royalty-owner got more ui royalties in one hour than the trimmer received in wages for twenty-nine days’ toil, “shovelling coal in hell by electric light.” The royalty for one day equalled two years’ wages, and the royalty on the round trip—just think of it! —was equal to twenty years’ wages for a coal trimmer. Or, stating ;it' anoth^t, \yay,-|for 'each' and " every penny tho trimmer received as wages, the land monopolist drew in royalties 58s 4d.

Every year, in round figures, 50,000,000 tons of coal roll down the Welsh valleys to the sea, and are shipped away to all parts of the world. At Is 3d per ton, the royalties on these 50,000,000 tons will amount to £3,125,000 a year. But it is not only the owner of the, land the coal is .dug •ffom' who 'receives 'mineral"’ rents and royalties,’ and r what'Lord Durham' calls “privileges.” If a ventilating shaft for a mine is pierced through an adjoining owner’s land, he demands an “air-leave” of so much a year. If the water pumped from the mine passes over his land he demands a “waterleave.” If the coil or ore has to pass over his land to wharf, road, or railway, he demands a “way-leave.” So that industry is burdened with “by-your-leavcs” of > every kind. For example, when the Barry docks were built, the Earl of Plymouth handed over a strip of foreshore, the two sides of a creek, which, as land, was practically worthless. His Lordship was generous enough to present this yaluablo site to the dock company on condition that they paid him a modest royalty—a mere acknowledgment—of a halfpenny a ton on all the coal and minerals exported or imported. But this modest little toll puts about £IB,OOO a year into Lord■ Plymouth’s pocket; and at the same time the construction of this dock and of the Barry railway has added enormously to tho value of his lordship’s surrounding land, which is now covered with houses built on the leasehold system, each paying a ground rent. It is small wonder that the minors demand the nationalisation of tho mines. But what they aim at could he far more easily and economically accomplished by a stiff tax on mineral rents, royal-, ties, and “privileges,” and a “dead rent” tax on unused mineral lands. These startling facts and figures, surely, constitute a strong object lesson to New Zealand— a warning to us not to allow the mineral wealth of the country to get into tho hands of the few, or, where it has already got into tho hands of individuals, to ransom it while there is yet time.