which are not being worked; they are not being worked only because they are not profitable.

19,407. If a concessionaire finds out that his conceзsion is a much more favourable one and a better one than an adjoining concession, will he pay higher wages on that account to the men ?—It is very difficult to say, but it is very likely that the workmen will know very well the price the coal is sold at, in fact, they are perfectly well aware of it, and if they see that their employer gets a large profit they will seek to derive advantage from it, by claiming higher wages.

19,408. Is it a fact that the price of the shares in the coalfields in the north of France have been rising for the last 50 years?-No doubt there has been a very great rise in the shares of the companies. In the Bourse, where you may see the prices of the shares, you will see that a lot of the companies have increased, but then some of them have also quite failed and have disappeared.

19,409. I am not sure whether you have seen this table giving particulars of the increase (producing a pamphlet containing tables) ?-No, I have not. That table may be correct. As I say, the prices of the shares are quoted on the Exchange, and I have no doubt this table has been compiled from those quotations and must therefore be correct. Would you allow me on that question of the particulars of the price of shares to give an explanation which would, perhaps, make it more comprehensible. It is very erroneous to say that so much money at the beginning has been paid on a share as 1,000 francs or 500 francs. In mines like Anzin there has been a creation of extensive works which have been made from time to time. At the beginning the shareholders have paid so much, their money has been called for; but afterwards, very often for many years, they have received little or nothing, and all the produce of the mine has been used for developing the concern which has been increasing year by year, and in that way has been brought up to its present position.

19,410. Are the shares in the coal mines in French

companies limited as to amount-limited as to liability? It depends upon the composition of the companies. There are some companies, especially colliery companies, which are under different commercial laws. For instance, old companies, like the one at Anzin, have very old statutes, which have been always preserved. They are They are what we call Sociétés civiles. In France, by special regulation, the people who work a mine may be considered not like tradesmen, but they may be possessed of the mine without being tradesmen. The Société civile is not, therefore, a commercial company. There are some companies, practically, which are still under that law. Then according to the law of 1867 there are companies which we call Sociétés anonymes or Sociétés en commandite; in fact, there are many different forms of companies. It is not the quantity of coal workers which decides it, but the form of the company itself which determines the liabilities you were alluding to.

19,411. As a rule, would a French company if it required a further capital to develop the mine have a right to call upon the shareholders to contribute more capital?--If it is what we call a Société anonyme, which specifies the amount of capital by shares, they cannot ask beyond that capital; but if it is a Société civile, the shareholders may be called upon to contribute according to the necessities of the mine.

19,412. Do you consider that the French system has tended to the development of the mineral industry in France ?--I have no doubt that it has. I consider that the law has led to the gradual development of concessions of a proper size. There are undoubtedly several causes for the development, and the chief cause, I think, is the opening of railways and the daily increasing facilities for carrying the coal far away from the place of production.

19,413. Would you attribute the development of the northern coalfields in recent years to the power of the French State to grant a right of search against the will of the surface owner? That has amounted

M. Raou! Duval and M. Aguillon.

16 Dec. 1891.

to something; but the development is attributable more to the position of the coal. The development began about 1840 when the coal fields of the Pas-deCalais were discovered. That has given a great impulse to the industries in that district, and now all those departments are the most inhabited and have a larger industry developing, especially, for instance, Development the sugar industry, which has spread on a very large of the mining scale in the north of France. If they had not had industry, coal in sufficient quantity, and cheap enough and of good quality, that would have been impossible.

19,414. Have the surface owners in the north of France to any great extent assisted in the development of the coal industry under their lands?—The owners of the surface have derived profit from the prosperity of the coalfields by the general advantage which it has been to the country, but individually, unless they were shareholders in the mines, they have not had any special profit. The expansion of industry in all those districts, of course, has benefited all landowners and agriculturists also.

19,415. Have many of the surface-owners in the north obtained concessions?—Their being surface owners has never been a reason why they should obtain concessions. There have been owners of the surface who have discovered coal and who have be come concessionaires, but that is not the case with the whole of them.

19,416. Is it the exception ?-It is the exception. By referring to a little historical book which I have here you will see that some owners sometimes by sinking wells for water-artesian wells-have found coal-beds, and some of them have so become concessionaires.

19,417. Referring to page 9 of the notes on mining Total royalties law, you will see a heading, "Total amount paid to paid. surface owner ; is it possible to arrive at any calcu lation in that respect; is it possible to estimate the total amount received by surface owners in royalties? -I cannot give it to you now, but we may give it to you subsequently; you are really desirous to fill up a blank there ?

19,418. Yes? We shall be happy to send you the figure.

19,419. (Mr. Dale.) On what principle is the Royalty to ground rent payable to the owner of the surface fixed the surface by the State on granting a concession; has it any owner. reference to the damage that will be occasioned to the surface, or what influence has that damage?—The principle as a principle is not stating that the owner of the surface has no right whatever in the mineral property lying under his ground, but that the State has the real property in it, which it can grant to a concessionaire; it wants, in fact, not to go to the extreme and say that there is no right whatever belonging to the surface owner. As for the damages that is quite a different question, and the cessionaire is liable to pay all damages which may occur from the exploration.

con

Royalties in

19,420. The 5d. per ton that is paid at St. Etienne, the redevance proportionelle, is received by the owner the St. Etienu of the surface, is it not?-Yes.

19,421. And it was fixed when the concessions were granted?—Yes.

19,422. What occasioned it to be fixed so high in that district?-Because it had been so from olden times. It was a right consecrated by long experience, and it has been respected by the law. The law of 1791 consecrated the right of the surface owner, but the law of 1810 says, on the contrary, that the minerals belong to the State. The rights previously in force before 1810 have been conserved.

19,423. At the present day when concessions are granted would a pretty uniform amount be made payable to the owners of the surface in different parts of France, or would it vary very much in the present day in regard to the new concessions ?-In the present day it is always a very small fixed redevance in every part of France except St. Etienne; in all the other parts of France it is so much per acre.

district.

Tormation of

ompanies by oncessionaires.

Mining

companies.

19,425. Then in addition to receiving such a rent, does the surface owner receive compensation for injury to his surface ?-Yes, for any damage which occurs from the fact of working a mine under the surface. The owner of the mine is liable to pay for every damage caused, and the amount is assessed by the tribunal.

19,426. I suppose, if houses and other buildings were injured by underground operations that would be the subject of compensation also ?-Yes, they are subject to compensation.

19,427. Are there many cases in which the concessionaire of minerals, say, coal, finds that he could not himself raise all the capital necessary for its development?-Yes, that is often the case.

19,428. Then in that case what usually happens? -Well, he starts a company.

19,429. And on what terms does the company get the benefit of his concession ?-On the same terms as the owner himself; the company takes the place of the owner.

19,430. But if he has obtained a concession which he has proved by borings to be valuable, no doubt he would not transfer it to the company except at some premium?—Yes, it is a matter of negotiation between him and the people who bring the capital.

19,431. Then what form does the transaction usually take, is it the payment of a sum of money down for the concession, or is it the payment of so much on each ton of mineral which may be hereafter worked?— Generally it is by the allotment of a part of the shares. One makes an estimate of the value of the power of the concessionaire, and at a meeting of the shareholders the amount of shares for this purpose is fixed; it is very seldom that a company pays in money.

19,432. Then whatever the company so pays to the original concessionaire for the benefit of his concession is in fact, so far as the company is concerned, an additional rent by them?--I do not believe it is, it might be.

19,433. I meant to say, whatever form it takes, whether is is by the granting of a share in the undertaking, or by the payment of a sum of money down, or by the payment of a sum from year to year upon the quantity worked, whatever the form may be, it is in fact an additional charge or burden upon the company?—Yes; but all that depends upon the results. which are obtained by the company.

19,434. That would be the effect, would it not?Of course. If a man spends 1,000l. in searches, and he says that he wants to receive 10,000l. for the concession, that will be a charge upon the companya charge upon capital, but it would be a matter of negotiation between the people connected with the same enterprise; it would not interfere with the granting of the concession.

19,435. I did not mean that. I merely meant to ascertain whether, as a matter of fact, the important companies working coal, we will say in France, are really doing so upon the exact terms of the original concession or whether they have to bear the burden of something given to the original concessionaire for the benefit of his concession ?-It would be so in special cases, but it must occur very seldom. Generally the people who have discovered the mine get capitalists on liberal terms to work it and to derive profit from it, but they do not mention that they are to receive for so many years such-and-such sums; they become shareholders like the others, but they have more or less shares according to the estimated value of the concession at the time that the company started.

19,436. (Mr. Forster.) Do the large companies in the north of France, such as the Anzin Company, hold

one concession or many?-Anzin is a union of seven

concessions.

19,437. Are they contiguous, do they touch each other? They are all touching one another; they are separate concessions, but they have been united now.

19,438. Are they obliged to have a separate colliery or working on each concession, or may they work it as if it were one concession ?-It is at the discretion of the Government. They are bound to supply the quantity of coal which is necessary in the district, and if there was a locality where some manufactures or some agricultural estate had grounds to complain that the supply of coal was not sufficient or that it was dearer on account of the carriage from a distant part of the concession, then the Government could oblige the company to work every concession. But as a general rule the interest of the company is to raise and to sell as much as possible, and so there has been no difficulty on that subject.

collieries.

19,439. I understand if a colliery in a certain dis- Compulsory trict, from some reason or other, is not profitable or working of could not be worked to pay itself they still would have to carry it on in order to supply that district?—That very seldom occurs; it may happen that a part of a concession would not be profitable to work. If on that part there are consumers who are injured by the stopping of the works the Government may oblige them to raise a certain quantity of coal there. But that power is very seldom applied. I must own that in one of my concessions it did occur:-It was a separate concession; it was in the department of Aveyron. We found it advantageous to entirely stop the works in one of the concessions. The people there complained to the Government, because they had to carry the coal by road for a few miles-say, about six miles--and the Government obliged us to open a new adit to deliver such a quantity of coal as was necessary; it was a very limited quantity, I believe 400 tons a year, but we were obliged to do that. That was a charge upon us, a loss of course, but we could not help it. The Government had the right to oblige us to do that. You will see by referring to the table on page 1 that there are 636 concessions granted, but under 300 of them are being worked; more than half of the concessions are not being worked, and they are not being worked simply because they are not profitable.

19,440. (Mr. Redington.) When there is a dispute Jury of between the surface owner and the concessionaire as expropriation. to the value of the land taken, before what tribunal does the case go ?—It depends.

19,441. If it is for the expropriation of land ?— The possibility of expropriation of land is limited to a small number of cases, and then it is deferred to what we call a jury of expropriation; the jury meets, considers the circumstances of the case, and decide the amount to be paid. In some other cases the concessionnaire has the right of occupying the ground for a certain length of time, it is the right of occupation temporaire; this right is subject to certain formalities. The concessionnaire, when the authorisation is granted, is obliged to pay the double value of the income of the land he occupies; the authorisation is given by the Administration, and the value of the income is fixed by the civil tribunal.

19,442. Is that a jury of experts ?-It is a jury of landowners and people qualified to ascertain the price. When it is for Utilité publique it is fixed by the Jury d'Expropriation, and when it is for occupation only it is referred to the ordinary jurisdiction, the Tribunal civil.

19,443. And the price given is twice the ordinary agricultural value, I suppose?-Yes, it is twice the value of the income of the land, which the law directs to be allowed by the Tribunal civil.

19,444. And the increased value which the existence of the mine would give to the land in the neighbourhood is not taken into consideration ?-It is the usual value of the rent of ground in the country.

19,445. (Mr. Abraham.) Is the price of coal ob- Royalties in tained in the district of St. Etienne higher than in the the St. Etienne district.

other districts where lower wages are paid?—Yes, it is higher.'

19,446. Is the quality better?-Generally at St. Etienne the quality is pretty good, but I cannot say that it is better than in the northern part of France.

19,447. Then the quality of the coal and the higher price that is got for it justified the higher wages paid? -Yes. There are in St. Etienne some qualities specially useful for making iron and for forging iron, and, although it is rather a slack coal, it fetches a high price.

19,448. That will account for the higher price paid for it? Yes, no doubt because it is used for special purposes.

19,449. (Mr. Kenrick.) I should like to ask you a question on the daily wages paid to labour in the field of the Pas-de-Calais compared with the daily wages paid in the St. Etienne district. It appears from the table on page 11 that the daily wage in the Pas-deCalais is 3 francs 89 centimes, that is, for the hewer of the coal, the underground labourer, and that the wage for the same man in the St. Etienne district is 4 francs 71 centimes ?-Yes. (Appendix C. IV.)

19,450. I understood you to say in explanation of that that the coal was more easily worked in the Pasde-Calais than in the St. Etienne district; was that the reason of the difference in the wage?-That is one reason; there are other reasons of course; and daily wages might be higher with a lower price of coal per ton.

19,451. Then there is another column of statistics which wants explanation on that supposition. It appears that the annual production of coal by the labourer in the Pas-de-Calais is only 332 tons, whereas in St. Etienne it is 350 ?—Yes.

· 19,452. That would seem to point to the fact that the coal is more easily worked in the St. Etienne district than in the Pas-de-Calais ?-The seams are different-the thickness varies, and, therefore, the

19,454. I see also that the daily labourer aboveground in the Pas-de-Calais gets 3 francs, but that only 2 francs 85 centimes are paid in St. Etienne, which would seem to point to the fact that the ordinary rate of wages in the Pas-de-Calais is rather higher than in the St. Etienne district ?—Yes; but that depends precisely on what I have told you; that in the North and the Pas-de-Calais now there is a great deal of industry, such as this special sugar industry, and that, therefore, there is no necessity to be a miner; anyone may find work on the surface. And so in the Pas-de-Calais there is more demand for labour, and the general level of wages has consequently a tendency to rise. To illustrate that, when there was the strike many of the miners who were on strike went to the sugar works and they got work at once.

19,455. Then I think I might say, in summing up your evidence on that point, that it is the general circumstances affecting the labour of the district which really govern the rate of wages of the miner?—Yes, exactly, and especially of the workmen overground; it is the general wages of the country.

19,459. (Chairman.) You are a solicitor of Newcastle-on-Tyne, I believe?-Yes, I am.

19,460. And you are solicitor to various lessees and colliery owners in Northumberland and Durham ?Yes, I am.

19,461. And also in the counties of York, Derby, Monmouth, and Glamorgan ?—I act for coiliery owners in those counties as well.

19,462. Are you solicitor to the North of England United Coal Trade Association ?--I am.

19,463. And to the Durham Coal Owners' Association ?-Yes.

19,464. And to the Northumberland Steam Coal Trade Association ?—Yes.

19,465. Are you also solicitor to any proprietors of mines?-Yes, I act for some lessors in Durham, but, my connexion is mainly with lessees or colliery owners, as they are called, in the north of England.

That

19,466. Will you describe the ownership of minerals in England and Wales generally ?-Prima facie the owner of the surface is entitled to everything beneath or within it down to the centre of the earth. is the ordinary legal definition; and, of course, by that means all mines and minerals, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to belong to the owner of the surface, which is generally the subject of private as distinguished from State ownership. To that there are certain exceptions. The first exception is mines of gold aud silver, which, wherever they are found, belong to the Crown. The second is mines under the foreshore of the sea and of tidal navigable rivers, that is to say, the portion of the seashore and the portion of the bed of the river which lies below ordinary high-water

I

Mr.

R. W. Coop

mark which belongs to the Crown, except in the cases where the owner of the land adjoining either Exceptions. the foreshore of the sea or the foreshore of the river has, either by some ancient grant or by prescription, obtained a title to the foreshore. may say that in the north of England I know of no cases where the Crown is not the owner of the foreshore of the sea. I have come across cases where the Crown has lost its title to the ownership of minerals under the bed of a tidal navigable river. The third exception is the case of mines in the Forest of Dean, which I think are, under an Act of the 1st and 2nd Victoria, chapter 43, vested in the Crown. The condition in the Forest of Dean is, I believe, peculiar, but I myself have no personal experience of the Forest of Dean.

19,467. The Commission have received evidence about that?-Then I will go to the fourth exception, which is the case of certain mines of lead in certain parts of the district of the Peak in the county of Derby, which also are vested in the Crown under a local Act of the 15th and 16th Victoria, chapter 163, and a public Act of the 14th and 15th Victoria, chapter 94.

19,468. We have had evidence about that too?— The next case is the case of all mines except clay and sand in the Isle of Man, which, I believe, under the Act of Settlement of that island, are vested in the Crown. The last case that I am aware of is the case of mines in certain lands in the county of Cornwall, which, under another Act of Parliament, the 7th and 8th Victoria, chapter 105, are vested, I believe, in the Duke of Cornwall, as part of the property of the Duchy of Cornwall. As regards the foreshore in Durham, the foreshore belonged until 1858 to the

Bishop of Durham as part of what were termed his jura regalia. (The bishop, as I have no doubt you know, was a prince palatine); but in 1858, by the Act of 21st and 22nd Victoria, chapter 45, these rights were transferred to the Crown, and they are now administered by the Office of Woods as a public department. In Northumberland the surface of the foreshore is administered by the Board of Trade under the Crown Lands Act of 1866, but the mines, as in Durham, remain under the administration of the Office of Woods.

19,469. What are the different classes of owners ?Generally speaking the owners are divided into classes of individuals and corporations. The powers of leasing minerals of individuals where the individuals are the owners in fee simple, as it is termed, of both the surface and the minerals are of course absolute. The powers of leasing of corporations depend upon the charters or Acts of Parliament which regulate the corporations. The corporations where I have had Perhaps experience of cases of leasing are these.

I should mention first the largest in the north of England-the case of the ecclesiastical corporations, such as bishops, deans, and chapters, and prebendaries and rectors, whose mineral properties are now generally managed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts of, I think, 1842 and 1858, by which the Commissioners have very full and satisfactory powers of leasing, for almost any length of time. Their general practice is to grant leases in the north of England for either 42 years or 63 years. The next case is the case of municipal corporations. I mention them because although it may appear somewhat singular, yet in the neighbourhood of Newcastle the corporation of Newcastle are in fact the lessors of certain coal mines, and they are regulated by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. Their powers of leasing are confined to 31 years unless they get the consent of the Local Government Board to grant a longer lease.

19,470. (Sir William Lewis.) That is a lease of minerals that you are referring to?-I am speaking entirely of minerals. The third case is the case of the Crown. When I speak of the Crown I do not mean the Crown as regards those peculiar districts of the Forest of Dean, and Derbyshire, and Cornwall, and Devonshire, but I mean as regards the foreshore such as we have in the north of England. The powers of the Office of Woods are regulated by an Act of 10 George IV., chapter 50, and an Act of 36th and 37th Victoria, chapter 36, under which the Crown may grant mining leases for 63 years. The fourth case of which we also have experience in the north is the case of the Admiralty which has succeeded to estates belonging to Greenwich Hospital. Under their Act of Parliament of 1865 the Greenwich Hospital Act, 28th and 29th Victoria, chapter 89, they may grant mining leases for 42 years. The fifth case of which we also have examples in the north is the case of the Universities and the Colleges of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham. They may, under the Universities and Colleges Estates Act of 1858, 21st and 22nd Victoria, chapter 44, grant leases for 60 years. The sixth case is the case of charities or hospitals of which we also have a few examples in the north, but their powers depend either upon their charters or upon their Acts or schemes sanctioned by the Court of Chancery, or upon the authority of the Charity Commissioners exercised under the Charitable Trusts Acts. In the case of the largest hospital that I know in Durham, which has a considerable amount of mining property, their powers of leasing are only for 20 years.

19,471. (Mr Rhodes.) What is generally the extent of the powers of leasing possessed by these charitable trusts? That I really could not tell, because each depends upon the particular charter or the particular scheme sanctioned by the Court of Chancery or by the Charity Commissioners. In this particular case in Durham, which is the largest case I know, of a charitable corporation in the north being the owners of mines, their powers of leasing are only

for 20 years. Of course the Charity Commissioners or the court have power to sanction a longer lease, but that term of 20 years is the term that is acted upon.

and minerals.

19,472. (Chairman.) What are the conditions Powers of where the surface and the minerals belong to the absolute same owner?-In that case the power to work is owners of absolute, and it depends upon the will or power of both surface the owner who may grant any power which he may think fit either for using the surface or underground space, and he may authorise the use of the underground space for any purpose whatever, and he may permit the minerals to be worked with or without leaving support for the surface.

19,473. What is the case where an owner is not an absolute owner?-In the case of an individual his power depends upon his instrument of title or settlement, whether it be a will, or whether it be a deed under which he claims his interest as limited owner, subject to recent statutes extending the powers of limited owners.

19,474. Would you go further and give us your opinion as to the power of limited owners as increased by the recent statutes? Yes. Limited owners may be generally taken under the designation of tenants for life. There are other limited owners no doubt of a special character, but they are all fully comprised in the definition in the Settled Land Act as far as my knowledge goes.

19,475. I do not think you need go into that ?— Tenants for life are of two classes, namely, those who are as it is called impeachable for waste, and those who are unimpeachable. Originally, in the absence of express powers, a tenant for life impeachable for waste could only work mines that were open when he succeeded, but a tenant for life unimpeachable for waste could work and open new mines. I think in both cases the power of leasing on the part of these tenants did not extend beyond their own lives. For many years previous to the passing of recent Acts of Parliament the powers of tenants for life were defined by their settlements, and, so far as my experience has gone, I think these settlement powers of leasing vary from 21 years to 60 years, 21, 31, 42, and 60 years I have known.

19,476. Have there not been cases in the north of England in which limited owners have gone to Parliament for Parliamentary powers to deal with their estates?—Yes, I know of one considerable estate belonging to a well-known nobleman now, and his predecessor and his trustees, under the original will of the testator, who also was a nobleman, got a Private Act of Parliament. The power of leasing in the will was 31 years, but by this Private Act, passed in the year 1850, the power of granting a mining lease was extended to 60 years.

Powers of

limited owners.

19,477. Will you now explain what additional Settled Estates powers were given to limited owners by legislation Act, 1856, since the year 1856?-In the year 1856 an Act was passed, called the Settled Estates Act, by which the Court of Chancery could authorise the granting of mining leases for 40 years, or for a longer term, I think, if on special grounds the Court thought fit to do so; and the powers of that Act were amended and amplified by another Act of 1877. In both of these cases a part of the rent had to be capitalised in very much the same way, I think, as it must be capitalised in leases granted under the Settled Land Act, in the absence of any provision in the settlement to the contrary.

19,478. I take it the reason why these provisions of capitalisation were insisted upon was to prevent the tenant for life getting the whole value of the land without giving the tenant in remainder any share of it ?-No doubt that was the reason.

19,479. That was the principle of it?-No doubt that was the reason. It was no doubt thought that the working out of the mineral was to a certain extent an exhaustion of the corpus, and that provision ought to be made as it were to protect the interests of the inheritance.

19,480. What additional power was given by the Settled Land Act of 1882 ?--Under that Act-section 7 is the section I refer to any tenant for life, whether impeachable or unimpeachable for waste, may grant mining leases for 60 years. The rent may be reserved either in the shape of an acreage rent, that is to say, so much per acre of coal worked, or it may be reserved according to the quantity of tons of coal worked, and there may be a minimum or dead or certain rent as it is called in various parts of England, and there may be a power to make up short workings to any extent whatever in respect of the certain rent. As regards the different methods of reserving rents, tonnage rents, I think, are the universal rule in Northumberland and Durham. In the Midlands and in South Yorkshire I rather think-1 speak subject to correction-that acreage rents are more general, at least that has been my experience.

19,481. (Mr. Rhodes.) They are universal ?—Yes, I know they are in the cases I have had to do with.

19,482. (Chairman.) I believe doubts were entertained as regards the powers given under the Act of 1882?-Yes, there were doubts as to whether rents could be reserved which depended upon a sliding scale varying with the price of the minerals, but those doubts have been removed by the Settled Land Act of 1890, section 8.

19,483. What is the general effect of these statutory leasing powers?-The general effect, no doubt, has been to beneficially increase the powers of the tenant for life-I think there is no doubt about that.

19,484. What arrangement is made between the tenant for life and the tenant in remainder ?-Under the Settled Land Act, unless there be a contrary declaration in the settlement, which of course can only take place in the case of a settlement made after the passing of the Act, in the case of a tenant unimpeachable for waste, he gets three fourths of the rent, and the remaining one fourth must be capitalised in the hands of the trustees of the settlement; and in the case of a tenant for life impeachable for waste he gets one fourth of the rent, and the remaining three fourths must be capitalised. It follows from that, of course, that in settlements made after 1882 settlors can insert a declaration avoiding capitalisation altogether, but that in settlements made previous to 1882, if the tenant for life desires to act under the powers of the Settled Land Act, and not under the special leasing powers of his settlement, the capitalisation cannot be avoided. I observe in the book of a very well-known conveyancer, Mr. Wolstenholme, there is a note that it may be presumed that in settlements made since the passing of the Act the insertion of a declaration against capitalisation will become usual.

19,485. Will you explain what the effect of that will be ?-The effect will be that the tenant for life will get the whole of the rent, but in all cases to my knowledge previous to the passing of the Settled Land Act, where the tenant for life was acting under the special mining leasing powers contained in the old-fashioned but very well-drawn settlements, he got the whole of the rents; there was no capitalisation that I am aware of.

19,486. The suggestion would be to give a greater power to the tenant for life, to give greater freedom to the tenant for life ?—Yes, it would, of course.

19,487. It would be in that direction?--In that direction undoubtedly; it would remove one of the objections which tenants for life have, and I have experienced them myself when acting under the powers of the Settled Land Act.

19,488. It might be in the case of some people that there might be an occasional disinclination to let ? -I have had that objection put forward to me in my practice.

19,489. A man who was tenant for life might say, It is not worth my while; I shall get very little out of this; I had better leave it alone ?-They have said that to me.

19,490. Or instead of giving a longer lease, which, perhaps, would be more for the benefit of the tenant,

Mr.

he would give a shorter lease under the powers of the settlement?—That is exactly what has happened to R. W. Cooper clients of my own. I have urged for long leases, and 16 Dec. 1891. I have been met with the objection, We shall have to capitalise part of the rent under the Settled Land Capitalisation Act if we go upon the Act. Our settlement powers of rent under are shorter than under the Act; they are only the Settled for 21 or 31 years; but our client, the tenant for Land Act, life, desires to have the whole of the rent during his or her life, and therefore we object to grant the lease under the powers of the Settled Land Act.

19,491. What is the effect of the statutes regulating the Crown and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as regards capitalisation? In their Acts there are provisions made for a certain proportion of the rents to be carried to the revenue account of the particular body and the remaining proportion of the rents is to be capitalised and invested.

19,492. Those provisions affecting those public bodies cannot act injuriously I presume upon the letting of mineral property?-Not at all, because the public bodies have no option of granting shorter leases on the terms of applying the whole of the rent

as revenue.

19,493. Will you point out what in your opinio even now are the disadvantages as respects the letting of mineral property in the present state of the law having regard to these alterations which have been made in the law?-I think myself that this capitalisation provision and the fact that there practically is an option, as it were, given to a certain class of settlements to avoid capitalisation, which option is not given to another class of settlements-I mean this option which was not given previous to the passing of the Act-is detrimental, because it is an inducement to tenants for life acting under settlements made previous to the Act with shorter leasing powers to act upon those shorter powers instead of acting upon the longer leasing powers of the Act. It is the longer leasing power which is really the thing that is to the advantage of the tenant. Every mining tenant naturally desires to have as long a tenure as ever he can get.

19,494. You pointed out as regards settlements made after the year 1882 that the difficulty may be avoided by a declaration in the settlement that no capitalisation need take place?—Yes, that is so.

19,495. But of course it is not certain that in all settlements made after 1882 the provision would be introduced?—No, it is not of course. It depends upon the will of the settlor. Now, speaking both of wills and of settlements which it has been my duty to draw, I know that by the express direction of the settlors I have been desired to avoid the capitalisation. 19,496. But in settlements made before 1882 the difficulty actually exists and cannot be removed ?—No, it cannot be removed.

19,497. What suggestion have you to make to us to get rid of what you consider to be a difficulty ?—I think either that capitalisation of the rents receivable by a tenant for life in respect of mining leases should be made universal, or else that there should be no obligation to capitalise at all leaving it to the free will of each particular settlor to direct what he pleases.

19,498. To which suggestion does your opinion incline, whether it should be repealed or male compulsorily universal ?-That is an exceedingly difficult question. I think, perhaps, the balance of my mind-it is not - is in a very strong balance favour of repeal. I always think that settlors are persons who are thoroughly capable of looking after themselves, and that they are the best judges of the conditions of their property and of the necessities of their settlement and so forth.

19,499. (Lord Macnaghten.) I suppose those proportions were probably taken from settlements which were in existence at the time; they represent the general run of the settlements ?-I never saw them in a settlement; I think they are in the Settled Estates Act.

1882.