COOK AND THE DUKE.

Shannon News, 26 February 1926, Page 4

COOK AND THE DUKE.

ROYALTIES BATTLE AT COAL\ COMMISSION. A lively duel between the Duke * of Northumberland and Mr. A. J. Cook, secretary to the Miners' Federation, was the great feature of Christmas week's sitting of the Coal Commission. The subject of royalties was discussed, when evidence was given on behalf of the mineral owners' Joint Committee. It was stated that the largest individual revenue from royalties belongs to the ' ecclesiastical Commissioners, who drew £400,000 a year. Mr. Cook, in his cross-examina-tion of the Duke of Northumberland, was very keen, but so unwise as to leave liimself open to the crushing repartee, with the result that, from the point of view of mere dialectics, the honours more frequently went to his Grace. OVER £35,000 NET. The Duke of Northumberland, in reply to the chairman, said that the net amount received by royalty owners was considerably less after deductions for taxes and other things. Often the deduction was 50 per cent. "Take my own figures for September, 1924, to September,. 1925," he said. "The. gross figure was £75,413, but after paying income tax, super tax, and mineral rights duty, the figure was £35,831. In the case of the Scottish royalty owners it will be consideraby less, because they have to pay rates as well." In further evidence the Duke of Northumberland said that no minerals were worked under any land of which he did not own the surface. His predecessors had bought land underneath which was coal. Mr. M'Munro explained that in Scotland royalties were rateable, whereas in England and Wales they were not.

Sir William Beveridge, citing certain arguments which he said had appeared to influence the Sankey Commission, quoted the case of a landowner in Kebt who suddenly found

himself richer by £3,000 to £4,000 a year because of the working by a pioneer company of the coal on his property, that landowner had shown no enterprise himself. His only enterprise was to put in restrictive 'barriers to the working of what was more or less (to him) unsuspected coal. What was the answer to that, asked Sir William. The Duke. —Are you suggesting that he was not entitled to receive this? Should It Enrich Landowners? Sir William asked, in reply, if his Grace would suggest that all unsuspected coal should eventually enrich the owner of the land. His Grate put it to Sir William that there was no difference between the case he had put of the Kentish landowner and the case of the man who inherited stock and shares, receiving them when they were at their lowest rate of interest and then getting the advantage of their rising value. Then there was the case of ordinary agricultural land which developed into building land and had its value greatly enhanced. Again, a man might inherit a picture worth £IOO and find that owing to a change in the artistic taste of the puhlic it was worth £3,000 or £4,000 later on. Was not a man entitled to that? Sir William pointed out that three or four thousand pounds was directly levied on the output of the miner. Selling His Capital. His Grace said the royalty was regarded as rent, whereas, in fact, it was not. It was a question of sale and purchase. "I am selling my minerals; I am selling the capital of my estate. After the minerals are worked out I am left with property that is almost useless. It is a question of sale, not rent." The Duke added that many people, even outside the miners, misunderstood the situation. 4'lBE RIGHTS OF THE STATE. 4 COULD BE A VIOLATION OF PRIVATE LIBERTIES.

General Laurence. —The State has already reserved to itself certain mineral rights, gold and silver and precious metals, and certain rights as to foreshores and the sea in front of private property. Might it not be assumed that if they had realised the great value in coal rights they would have reserved them in the same way? Would your objetion have then been the same? The Duke.—Such a thing might have happened hundreds of years ago, and ibf State might have reserved all the minerals, and even the land as well. But I do not regard that as constituting any argument in favour of nationalisation. '

Asked in the event of the State reresuming its natural and inherent rights in that respect and paying compensation to the present owners, he would still object, the Duke said even then he thought it would be a very dangerous principle. He thought it would still be an infringement of the rights of private property to take property on such a gigantic scale. Mi*. Cook Cross-Examines. The cross-examination of the wit-, nesses on behalf of the Miners' Federation was undertaken by Mr. A. J. Cook. The Duke of Northumberland; replying to Mr. Cook, said he could not say what was the total amount of royalties received since the coal had first been won. Would I be right in assuming that the total amount received in royalties is £4oo,ooo,ooo?—That is for 100 years. You should surely have given notice of such a question. Mr. Cook.—You claim the right to royalties from minerals under the earth on your land. Do. you think you would have a similar right to royalties from the air—for aeroplanes for flying over your land? The Duke; —I don't think so, but it is a question of law. Supposing it were eventually found, possible to extract electricity from the air over your land, would you, in your opinion, be entitled to royalties for that? —That is a very hypothetical question, and I could not tell you what I would do in such a very unlikely circumstance. . You have agricultural land, and under it coal is found. Who is responsible for the increased value of the land? Surely not yon.? His Grace replied that he did not personally created the increased value.

The land has become more valuable because someone else's labour has been spent on it? —Yes, but anyone owning a factory is dependent on the work of the people in the factory. Mr. Cook (to his Grace).—What precisely is the service which you as owner of royalties render the country? Service from Royalties. The Duke. —There are services which every owner of property of any sort and kind renders, and there is no difference between the owner of ordinary property and the owner o$ mining royalties. He is compelled to pay taxes on the value of his property, and he lias to administer his property to the best benefit of the public. "I pay on my mineral property," the Duke added, "an annual taxation amounting to 10/6 in the pound. I have already paid in the form of death and succession duties 22 per cent, of that value. My heir, when he succeeds roe, will pay 40 per cent, of more of' that value. That will mean the breaking up of my estates." Miners' Houses. Continuing, his Grace said that when he leased the land he made it conditional that miners should be adequately and property housed. Then, in addition, his familly had rendered public service. They had helped considerably towards the development of properties in Northumberland, had spent money on schemes for cottages, built-schools and churches, : and contributed to charities. His Grace added: "I try to do the best I can to render

service to the miners by conducting propaganda in order to explain to the miners the disastrous course in which they are being led by their leaders" (laughter). He provided houses for the miners in Northumberland. He charged a rent of £6 a year, and in many cases only £3 a year. In nearly every case the miners received a house allowance amounting to just under £l2 pper house, so that in some cases miners were making £9 profit. The Pay of 440 Miners. Mr. Cook.—You don't think you are taking too much out of the country? ■ —No, I don't. I give some of my lessees concessions when they are" in difficulties. You get about £1,600 a week?—No, not that amount. That is equivalent to 10/- a day for the miner;' Your pay amounts to the wages of 440 miners per week? —In the first place you are taking gross inciome. You must take net income. I am taking the miner's gross wage. He has to pay rent and rates. Transpose yourself for a week or two tyito the mine; You read of somebody rendering less service than yourself and getting 440 times the amount you do. Would you not think that that was more responsible for your grievances than any agitation by the miners' leaders ? His Grace replied that he knew what the miners thought. He was convinced that was the policy of the miners' leaders to inspire discontent, whatever the miners thought. In general, the miner was a very clear-head-ed" person. in an undertone the Duke added: "I don't think that can always be said of its leaders." "The Earth is the liord's." Asked whether he did not think it would be better if the whole of the royalties wert appropriated for the increase of the miners' wages, the Duke said: "Then you propose to.take away not only what belongs to the landlords, but what belongs to the Government as well?" Mr. Cook. —What belongs to the landlords? I am not questioning you hdw you got your land, nor your grandfather, nor other ancestors got theirs. When I was at school I read in the Bible, "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof." The then, if the earth is the Lord's it cannot belong to the miners. I take it that the. expression you have quoted means that the earth arid its fulness were to be used to the best advantage of everyone. Fear of "Socialisation."

In reply to other hypothetical questions, the Duke said that if he thought there was a prospect of nationalisation he would say: '-'Then let there be nationalisation at once," because under a Conservative Government the owners of the rights appropriated would assuredly 'get some amount of fair treatment, whereas under a Labour Government, which he understood was a possibility ("Hear, hear" from Mr. Cook and others), they would stand to have the property taken over without such a provision. And he was satisfied that it would not stop at, nationalisation of royalties, but would mean nationalisation of mines as well and proceed to the "socialisation," as it was called, of other national necessities. Mr. Cook put a number of questions with regard to the ownership of the land at present belonging to his Grace, and' how it came into the possession of his family. The Duke explained that it was made by purchase —Royal grants, at various times re-grants, and intermarriage settlements. "Indefensible Rights." Asking what was meant in his proof of evidence by his "indefensible rights," Mr. Cook wanted to know, "Do I understand it means that the law cannot be altered without your' consent?" The Duke. —Do you really mean that no law could be passed by Parliament without my consent? Of course not. What is meant is that the title of ownership under the law is unquestionable. Mr. Cook put to the Duke more than once the question: "Do you think it right that £6,000,000 a year should be taken out of the industry by 4,000 royalty owners?" and the Duke each time replied that it was unfair to call it taking £6,000,000 out of the industry. Tt was the sale of a marketable commodity by its owners.