All gold panners in Scotland need to be aware of this new move.

[www.snh.gov.uk]

Quote -

"River engineering

Scotland's rivers have been modified by people in many ways over a long period of time. Many rivers have:
•been dammed to enable water abstraction for domestic and industrial use and to generate power
•had their banks reinforced to prevent the erosion of economically important land, such as that used for growing crops, and to prevent the undermining of roads and bridges
•been embanked to prevent flooding
•been extensively managed by fishery managers to promote fishing opportunities.

Many of Scotland's rivers have gravel beds and are constantly changing in response to heavy rainfall and other natural events. Rivers have a lot of energy and need space to accommodate these changes. A change in energy in one part of a river may result in a change in another part of the river.

Human interference can change the natural flow of a river and this may result in the need for additional, unplanned work as they adjust to these changes. For example, the creation of flood embankments in one part of a river may lead to worse erosion elsewhere as the power of newly constrained flood waters is transferred downstream."

SNH has here admitted that the river system in Scotland has been substantially altered by human activity over, well, human history in Scotland.
Solution? Turn the clock back by banning gold panning! Same game as in Wales. The Freshwater Pearl Mussel must of course be protected, but this can only be achieved by working with panners across Scotland. They have failed to take into account the fact that panners can be viewed as integral to the natural ecological changes within gold-bearing rivers. Mining companies utilise gold panning techniques to identify new mining sites. The Crown Estate, which still claims Scottish gold, despite the fact that its rights were abolished by the 1592 Mines and Metals Act, allows companies (and the British Geological Survey) to conduct large scale panning operations, as well as massive quarrying and hugely polluting operations."

There is a link on this page is the SNH Position Statement on gold panning. This is the text -

"February 2012
POSITION STATEMENT
SNH Position on gold panning
Gold and silver are Mines Royal which in most cases belong to the Crown and are managed by The Crown Estate. The taking of gold requires the permission of The Crown Estate with the exception of areas where the rights belong to others.
The taking of gold from land or rivers without the necessary permissions is theft and accessing or crossing land with intent to carry out an illegal activity falls outside the scope of access rights.
Before a landowner can undertake or permit an activity identified as potentially damaging within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), they must consult with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Gold panning has the potential to cause damage in certain areas. If SNH decided to issue consent to landowners for gold panning, it would have to place several conditions to ensure against damage. The consent would be issued to the landowner, as gold panners have no legal entitlement. Causing damage to a SSSI or other designated site is illegal.
If you are planning to carry out gold panning in Scotland, the following steps must be taken:
1.
If intending to remove any gold, permission must be obtained from The Crown Estate or the other relevant estates of the Duke of Sutherland or the Duke of Argyll. The Crown Estate’s policy relating to gold panning can be found on its website (www.thecrownestate.co.uk/mines_royal).

1.
If the location is within a SSSI then you must contact the landowner who may need to gain consent from SNH. If the location is within a Special Area of Conservation, then you should seek advice from the local SNH office.

1.
Subject to these qualifications, gold panning is within Scottish access rights, which must be exercised responsibly in line with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code."

So, even outside a SSSI, SNH says you need a panning licence from the Crown Estate, which will refuse to issue one, even though it has no right to regulate panning under Scottish laws.
Landowners who permit goldpanning, will be accused of conspiring in the theft of Crown gold.

I am not aware if the British Goldpanning Association was consulted by SNH in the preparation of this Position Statement. SNH have not studied the relevant Acts of the Scottish Parliament, namely the Royal Mines Act 1424, of which only one clause, relating to silver in lead mines remains. The Crown Estate can point to no precise legal basis for its claim to all naturally occurring gold in Scottish land or rivers, well, not since 1582 at least. Have the Scottish members of the BGA any idea about the new SNH policy?

So, what is the risk of prosecution if one is found panning, with or without the permission of the landowner? Will goldsmiths shops which have used panned Scottish gold be raided? The Crown Estate would have to complain of theft to police, and then the CPS would be obliged to study this aspect of the law in depth. The Scottish Parliament would then be alerted to this, to say the least gray area of the law.

The real danger is that bad byelaws could be made on the basis of invalid Royal Prerogatives. The Bill of Rights 1689 banned any taxation by Royal Prerogative, without the consent of Parliament. A claim of total ownership of all undiscovered gold in Scotland is, in effect a 100% tax. Naughty.

The Crown Estate have admitted in a recent email to me that particular case law prevents the Crown from mining on private land, (and it would not risk the costs involved anyway), or from.licencing a third party to mine. If the landowner refuses access, perhaps because the price isn't right, a prospecting or mining licence from the Crown is worthless. What kind of government quango is it that sells potentially worthless contracts, and what kind of government permits its quangos to do this? A commercial company would be better advised to invest in a barrister's opinion on the 1424 and 1592 Acts, and if the conclusions expressed in Wikipedia on the subject are correct, approach the landowner directly, cutting out the expense of dealing with the Crown Estate.

SNH will then have to prove any allegation of damage against a landowner or the panners on his land. There are, as SNH has admitted, many large scale problems which it can barely deal with. The first case against any panner with a henderson pump, bucket and sluice will help to bring this new policy into disrepute.

As I proved in my demonstration in Wales, it is impossible to prove damage where none has occurred, except in the imaginations of jobsworths who don't want to understand their duties with respect to protecting ancient traditions, and the economic benefits which gold panning can bring to remote communities.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 11:29PM by Brian Wright.

Thanks Brian. That was interesting and thought provoking.

It does seem to me though that, if one strips away all the verbiage and avoids tempting detours, One is left with three very simple questions, from which answers to all others, and in accordance with law, should follow:
1. Who owns the land ?
2. Who else holds lawful rights in the land (e.g. a tenancy, easement or right of way)?
3. How does this ownership and associated rights affect me if I decide to drive North for a week-end's gold-panning?

However attractive it might seem at first sight, the problems that would arise, by allowing all persons lawfully to enter onto land and then search for and remove from it items of value without either permission or making payment, are far greater that the annoyances caused to some by a requirement to seek prior permission and, maybe, make payment. Examples of such sensible controls are very many, ranging from the control of parking, through treasure hunting to entering land in pursuit of wild game or vermin.

Wherever we live and however small our estate/tenancy/licence to occupy is, we are generally grateful for the many laws that most carefully restrict the rights of others to enter our 'little kingdom' without our permission and to do what they, alone, have decided to do. Add to that the taking away of items of value without our consent.

Both in conscience and in common sense,, we cannot ask that such laws apply to others but not to ourselves. So, perhaps the task becomes one of showing that the panning of rivers for alluvial gold is in some way unique and outside of the laws civil and criminal by which activities on the property of others and the removal of property without permission and consent are otherwise regulated?

If I wish to fish in a local stream (that might hold a few brook trout), I am required to hold a licence, renewable annually for a small fee that helps pay to maintain a healthy fish stock. I also need to ask the farmer for permission to access his river bank and to fish from it. Such permissions (after an initial grant) are often renewed cursorily on future occasions, a wave of the hand sufficing to ask for and receive permission for a day's fishing. A 'thank you' on leaving is usually appreciated too, together with the offer of a share in any catch. Closing gates, reporting the unusual or animals in distress - and a large bottle of good whisky every Christmas - seem to keep one a welcome guest with continuing access. Is that too much to pay for my pleasure?

Thanks Owen, all the points you have made are valid. Further explanation is due.
Any panner who takes gold to sell commercially without the knowledge or permission of the landowner is of course stealing from that landowner, who under the 1592 Mines and Metals Act, was given a right to mine on his or her own land. The landowner was obliged to pay the Crown a 10% duty on the value of the gold, however that might be assessed. If a landowner permits goldpanning for profit, without ensuring the 10% duty, that is at his or her own risk.
However, by misdirection (ie granting overriding prospecting rights to third parties, which appears to have breached landowners 1592 rights) the Crown has prevented landowners from exercising those statutory rights, so they have been unable to pay the 10% duty. SNH has now perpetuated this con by threatening freeholders who permit goldpanning.

The Scottish access code prohibits commercial activities which are not permitted by the landowner. If a landowner permits panning, with perhaps a 50/50 share of the gold, which I believe is common practice, the landowner is responsible for paying the 10% duty. Equally, if, as happens around Cavanacaw, the landowner is quietly welcoming to panners (only very fine gold around there apparently), the visiting panner gains the impression that it is a free country.

I have never panned in Scotland and I probably will never do so. I'm too busy visiting and advising small farmers in Wales and the border counties.

However, under the open access legislation it is perfectly arguable that panning for small amounts of gold for geological studies is within the law. There are government guidelines which support this line.

In theory, if you found a massive nugget you would report it to the landowner and the Crown and secure a deal. It would be up to you whether to bring it to the farm and trust the farmer to give you 50%. You might want instead to report it directly to the Crown Estate and take them to the spot, and get a contract to pay the 10% duty when sold. In this case, there is no intent to steal from the rightful owner.

Nevertheless, the Crown Estate is still holding to the line that they have full ownership of all natural gold in Scotland, ignoring the specific freedoms granted by the 1592 Act. I have found an official and reliable English interpretation of the 1592 Act and will post the link and some key paragraphs in my next post.

Let's widen the discussion on this and get the issues out in the open. Thanks for participating Owen.

The link below is from St Andrews University - Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707

[www.rps.ac.uk]

This is an English translation of the Mines and Metals Act 1592, which negated the Royal Mines Act 1424. The Crown Estate was until last week relying upon the 1424 Act for its so called Royal Prerogative to all mines of gold and silver in Scotland. More recently, they have admitted that their right to Scottish gold and silver is not based on ancient prerogative, but upon statute, specifically citing the 1424 Act. They did mention the 1592 Act, but misquoting it as if it reinforced the 1424 Act in favour of the Crown. Utter nonsense of course.

This is a classic house of cards. Once landowners realise that they have enforceable rights against the Crown Estate, many will hopefully welcome prospectors onto their lands, estates, back gardens and mountain tops. There are very few capable and committed prospectors, but as one of those I will assist others who wish to enjoy recreational panning across the British Isles.

After putting the Crown Estate right on points of law, we will then have to deal with legitimate SSSI questions. Once landowners can deal directly with panners, without fear of prosecution for stealing Crown gold, and we will all pay the 10% duty to avoid that problem, we can draw up practical rules which will ensure that we work with nature. The Forestry Commission and other commercial operators, which cause great damage to the natural environment, will then humbly have to take notice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 11:26PM by Brian Wright.

Although an outsider, with no knowledge of UK laws, I have nevertheless read this fascinating thread, and previous threads on gold panning in Wales, with great interest. I was previously involved with studying environmental impacts of alluvial mining (quite negligible on a recreational level) in the USA and Bolivia, and did some panning myself in my student years.

Legal question: In some countries, when one believes one's rights have been wrongly restricted by the authorities, one can go out and exercise the right anyway, get arrested or receive a summons, refuse to pay the fine, and appear in court to argue one's case, at which point the authorities will either realise they were wrong and drop the charges, or the legal battles will begin, with the defendant often assisted in his defence by some interested non-profit organisation. An example of this were the few individuals who insisted on hiking through the U.S. National Forests without paying for an "adventure pass", with the government finally backing down on this issue and admitting that buying an "adventure pass" is voluntary. A propensity to rush into litigation is admittedly more common in the USA than in some other countries (We have an extraordinarily large number of lawyers who need work), but do things function in much the same way in the U.K.? Just idle curiosity on my part.

Hello Alfredo and thanks for the contribution.

On this specific issue, the Crown Estate would need the approval of the Attorney General before spending any money in prosecuting panners, or even landowners who have diy gold mines, and there have been a few of those in North Wales.
It would have to be a criminal trial and they couldn't just go after one panner to make an example.
Even if the Attorney General pursued a criminal case he would risk bringing the issue of who owns river gold, and native gold in general to public attention. This is not Medieval England, and the majority of the population, and serious commentators might wonder if the government should be allowed to bully small landowners, and even leisure panners, and more importantly - on behalf of the Queen. I think the Palace would veto such a move, as the case could bring the Queen into disrepute.
Now, I'd say that is one advantage to having a titular head of state.
Hope that inspires a little confidence in the panning community here, but we still need to campaign to have our traditional rights discussed and protected.

Hello again Brian,

Curiouser and curiouser

Let me start by saying that I am not a lawyer and the law which I once studied for a few years (and *many* years ago) was the law of England and Wales and not the law of Scotland which is substantially different. Anything I write here should be read as in the context of the law of England and Wales.

So, what *are* the roots here? I think it's useful to remember how English law began and how it has developed even down to today.

English law as we now understand it can be said to have its its roots in the two centuries before the Norman Conquest in which the preceding warring kingdoms (Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia) merged into one kingdom, England. After the Norman conquest, the single kingdom was maintained but the old Saxon law was overturned and a more developed and closely coordinated system of rights,privileges and duties put in place, more centralised in structure, more comprehensive and with the authority for and administration of all all aspects by the king in person (The Crown' in a continuing sense) being the ultimate authority and sovereign lord of all (under God alone)..

First the Conqueror set out to make an inventory of everything in the kingdom (the Domesday Book). All belonged to the King (by right of conquest) and after him to his heirs and successors. Thus he knew the size of his pie. In turn this enabled him the slice the pie up between his nobles, to turn this unwieldly unitary ownership into a manageable and productive resource, Reserving some part as a personal fiefdom, the King sliced up the rest, giving title to his loyal senior nobles. These grants were never absolute but conditional on continued loyalty to the Crown, the performance of certain agreed duties when called on to perform them (e.g. to raise and equip armed men in time of war) and to pay taxes annually to the Crown by way of tribute for the rights granted. The Domesday book, listing even pigs and cattle, enabled taxation to be fixed at a sustainable level. These senior nobles (the King's relatives and buddies) in turn sub-divided most of their lands, placing them (under the same feudal principles of tax and duties) with under-lords - and hence even to under-under-lords and eventually to 'free men'. Free men had no title (lordship) but held and might work land granted to them in return for loyalty, payment of taxes and performance of duties to their lord (origin of the term 'freeholder' AIR).

This system of tenure did not embrace all the people. Outside of this system of land tenure were the serfs. These worked lands for which they had no tenure in return for permission to erect a hovel and to put aside for their use some fraction of the crops they raised or the cattle or sheep they tended. They had no grant of rights, lived more or less at their master's pleasure and, on pain of death, requires their master's permission to travel outside the confines of their master's land. Serfs paid no taxes and were not required to bear arms in the King's causes. Some free men were also outside of the land-owning system, these being the tradesmen, artisans and craftsman who had a different system of rights and privileges (for the grant of which they too paid taxes to the Crown).. Any man, falling outside of any of these categories was a 'rogue and vagabond' - seen as a menace to the ordered society and likely to be killed as such.

This is, I think, the essential perspective into which mining rights were fitted. When the unitary sovereign right to the land was sub-divided for purposes of exploitation, the rights to exploit riches under the land were reserved by the Crown. I.e. nothing has ever been taken away from the landholder's in this regard, since it was never given to them in the first place! The centralisation of the exploitation of mining rights also proved to to be less profitable to the Crown than allowing the land owners to exploit the mineral resources on and under their lands - in return for payment of an additional tax, of course.

Now, much has changed in this fair land since the day's of William the Conqueror but the essential basics of the system of law and land tenure that he put in place a thousand years ago are still recognisable today. We have not, these several hundred years, had serfs and all, men and women, are now free, enfranchised - and pay taxes

Wales was finally subdued by force of arms and brought subservient to the English system of law at the end of the 1300's. The two sovereign kingdoms England and Scotland merged under one Crown, voluntarily and by Acts of their respective Parliaments, in 1707 - but on terms whereby the Scotland retained its own and equally ancient system of laws.

Nominally, taxes and duties are still paid to 'The Crown' but as we know, the reality is that the 'Crown' is now a cipher for the will of the people as it is expressed through Parliament, now the law-making and law-changing body. The Crown Estates are now managed under arrangements enacted by Parliament and for the benefit of the public purse. Income from the Crown Estates finally ceased to go to the ruling monarch in exchange for an annual grant of money ('The Civil List'' by Parliament to the monarch.

In sum then:

- All rights in real (royal) estate derive, historically, from the Sovereign in person in return for payment of taxes and duties. I.e. there is a bargain, an exchange. I'll give you this; you'll give me that and we both make a profit.

- Such rights are/were granted in return for the payment of taxes and duties.

- The powers of the monarch have been replaced by the elected government of the day as the executive arm of 'The Crown'

- This system, originating though it did in 'Force Majeure', has served and still does serve us well. Over the centuries, it has been successively modified until many no longer know the roots of what we have to day and how there can be a ripple effect through the whole complex edifice of law, rights and taxation by the arbitrary abolition of any part of it.

- Major and sudden change to the basis of law occurs only as a consequence of war or revolution. The aftermath of the Norman Conquest gave us the foundation on which much of our law still stands. About six hundred years later, forty years of internecine strife and turbulence beginning with the English Civil War and ending with the Bill of Rights was the watershed at which power passed irrevocably from the Crown, as the sovereign in person, to the Houses of Parliament. History is as it is and cannot (should not) be 'airbrushed'. out of sight and mind. The system of laws and of the executive authority of the State that we have evolved suits us well enough and, I sincerely hope, never requires a third cataclysmic change. Even if the boot occasionally pinches a little, it's proved stout footware that serves our common good.

Does this give a useful perspective to the various rights, duties, levying of taxes and the various powers pertaining to the control of mining on private lands? I am still to be persuaded that the system is broken and needs fixing .

We are agreed that private rights in property are to be respected. Where then is any essential point of difference in our positions? Over the right of the Crown (=Parliament) still to levy a special tax of ancient origin on the proceeds of private mining? It seems clear to me that the proceeds of such taxation do not pass (any longer) to the reigning monarch but to the general treasury to serve the common good.
.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 11:30PM by Owen Lewis (2).

Thanks for providing this interesting perspective Owen.

I will answer your central question first with a few general principles.

It is a matter of what the separate laws of Scotland and England/Wales actually state, and what the Crown Estate is doing, contrary to these laws. If the actual laws are good, they should be applied. If the rules which are being imposed are counter-productive and unlawful, these rules should be challenged. If the Crown Estate believes that the actual laws are bad, it should try to persuade all three governments to change these laws. At present, the Crown is sitting on the fence and relying heavily upon public ignorance, as well as the hows and whys of the development of these laws.

In both countries, the ancient laws arising from the imposed perceived principles of Royal Prerogative were variously repealed and amended, and for very good practical reasons. The ancient laws discouraged prospecting and mining, and the amended laws encouraged new initiatives.

However, the Crown Estate has in recent decades tried to impose the ancient laws, without reference to the various repeals and amendments. Therefore, the system which was set up to ensure successful prospecting and mining initiatives by landowners themselves has become disfunctional. Only large companies can afford to invest in prospecting and mining, even though case law dictates (at least in England/Wales) that the Crown has no right to lease mining rights to third parites; this is because landowner has the primary statutory right to prospect and mine. Small landowners are again discouraged from prospecting on their own lands, even though they have legal and statutory freedom to do so under the respective Acts for Scotland and England/Wales. This convinces me that the system is broken.

I am simply trying to persuade the Crown Estate to fully explain its position in both cases, so that the system can be fixed and small landowners are able and confident to prospect and mine once again. If the Mines Royal Acts 1688 & 1693, as well as the Bill of Rights 1689 are applied as amended, this will put hundreds of small landowners (mainly small Welsh hill farmers) in a very strong negotiating position. The Crown will have to deal fairly with these small landowners with regard to share of profits and costs.

Now that we have, for the first time it appears an English Translation of the 1592 Mines and Metals Act, I and a few others with an interest in the subject are strongly persuaded that the Crown Estate's licencing system for prospecting and mining in Scotland is in error. The Crown Estate has until recently been applying the ancient English law of Mines Royal in Scotland. It is only recently that they have referred to the 1424 Royal Mines Act (Scotland) for the basis of their powers, not understanding that the 1592 Act had replaced the 1424 Act. After 1592, there were no Royal Mines in Scotland, only free mines subject to the 10% duty. This level of duty may be too high, and perhaps the 4% currently charged under the flawed Mines Royal is of course attractive to large companies. But the Crown Estate is also imposing pre-mining charges which have no basis in the laws of Scotland or England/Wales, and these practices are cutting small landowners entirely out of the picture.

Another big question is whether the Queen, or her governments are entitled to that duty. Should the Scottish government receive the duties, or share them with the English and Welsh governments? Will the English/Welsh government share the proceeds of mining with the Scottish government? I can hardly believe that it would. These are certainly gray areas that should be addressed.

The Crown Estate may be very reluctant to encourage wider debate by Scottish, Welsh and English politicians; perhaps because the system has been so badly managed for so long. The Crown Estate is after all obliged to manage its estate responsibly and productively. I believe that the best way to achieve this duty is to recognise the statutory rights of small landowners and encourage them to responsibly exploit our various nations' mineral resources for these nations' good. Not to simply allow big foreign companies to usurp local landowners' rights, taking the lions' share of the profits out of the country. Local mines for local good should be the Crown Estate's policy from now on.

100% of the profits from the Crown Estate's own lands are of course legally due to the Treasury. However, the Crown Estate does not include the private lands in either Scotland or England/Wales, where the Crown has only residual rights and where they are legally obliged to deal fairly with those landowners. The Scottish government and Welsh Assembly may at some point attempt to gain control of mines in their own lands. It would be advisable for these regional bodies to learn from the Crown Estate's mistaken interpretations of the Scottish and English/Welsh mining legislation and history.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 11:34PM by Brian Wright.

An advisor for The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland website clarified some important issues this morning.

The text on the original manuscript of the 1424 Royal Mines Act was just as it appears today, no preamble. This was the first recorded Act of the Scottish parliament, Acts gradually became more developed in style and content, until they were voluminous by 1707. The Scots version is the legal document. However, the RPS interpretations, only completed two years ago, were sent to the Scottish Law Commission. The data on the site is up to date as of this January, for all enactments in force. The failure or perhaps lack of interest to find a definitive understanding the Scots, may explain why the London based Crown Estate has not applied the 1592 Act, as amended and in force today. I have provided the Crown Estate with the interpretation, below.

As the 1592 dissolved Royal Mines from the Scottish Crown, the 1424 Act appears to me to be somewhat anacronistic, and limited to ores of a certain value.

1424/15]

Of gold and silver mines

Item, of any gold and silver mines that are found in any lord's lands of the realm, and it may be proved that three halfpennies may be refined of silver from a pound of lead, the lords of the parliament consent that such mines shall be the king's, as is the custom in other realms.

Brian Wrote:

' I am simply trying to persuade the Crown Estate to fully explain its position in both cases, so that the system can be fixed and small landowners are able and confident to prospect and mine once again. If the Mines Royal Acts 1688 & 1693, as well as the Bill of Rights 1689 are applied as amended, this will put hundreds of small landowners (mainly small Welsh hill farmers) in a very strong negotiating position. The Crown will have to deal fairly with these small landowners with regard to share of profits and costs'.

Maybe that statement enables me to start seeing the trees rather than just the wood as a whole

Would you please elucidate a little further? My understanding (from your OP) is that landowners are free to mine on their land but but pay a 10% tax to the Crown on what they extract. Correct?

Applying this to your specific concern of individual gold-panners dealings with landowners, I further understand from you that if a landowner gives permission (of any duration) to another party to pan for gold in his streams, the land owner is responsible for paying a 10% tax on the value of anything that the said panner(s) extract. Is that a fair summary of your concern?

Are there any other points of equally fundamental concern to you in this matter? You will realise that what I am trying to do here is the clarify any point of principle which is a concern to you and then see see what we can do to deal with these. That done we can then turn to examining any (lesser?) concern you may have in respect to the 'mechanics' with which the Crown chooses to give the principles effect. I think it might help us to a conclusion to consider these two matters separately and in the order of their precedence.

Your commentary on the earliest Act of the Scottish parliament was interesting. A certain amount of 'me-tooism' it it, as Scotland starts to follow the English example?. Though there were earlier forms of parliament and their enactments dating back to 1215 to place some limit on the autocracy of the English kings and raise other voices in matters of justice and government, the first parliament to the summoned into being other than by royal command was in 1264. It was the first to be comprised of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and the Commons, the latter being comprised of two representative knights from each shire (representing the 'landed' interests' and two burghers from each borough representing in Parliament, for the first time I think, trade interests outside of the system of land tenure..

Owen Lewis (2) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brian Wrote:
>
> ' I am simply trying to persuade the Crown Estate
> to fully explain its position in both cases, so
> that the system can be fixed and small landowners
> are able and confident to prospect and mine once
> again. If the Mines Royal Acts 1688 & 1693, as
> well as the Bill of Rights 1689 are applied as
> amended, this will put hundreds of small
> landowners (mainly small Welsh hill farmers) in a
> very strong negotiating position. The Crown will
> have to deal fairly with these small landowners
> with regard to share of profits and costs'.
>
> Maybe that statement enables me to start seeing
> the trees rather than just the wood as a
> whole
>
> Would you please elucidate a little further? My
> understanding (from your OP) is that landowners
> are free to mine on their land but but pay a 10%
> tax to the Crown on what they extract. Correct?

Yes, that is the position in Scotland, apart from estates which were granted mining rights prior to 1424, where the owners are obliged to take account of environmental guidance, with regard to both mining and panning. However, the position in England and Wales is an entirely different subject, which is dealt with in an earlier, separate thread.
>
> Applying this to your specific concern of
> individual gold-panners dealings with landowners,
> I further understand from you that if a landowner
> gives permission (of any duration) to another
> party to pan for gold in his streams, the land
> owner is responsible for paying a 10% tax on the
> value of anything that the said panner(s) extract.
> Is that a fair summary of your concern?

Almost, but this is, to say the least a legal gray area. The Crown Estate once stated that it owned all naturally occuring gold in the UK. It has now retreated to claiming 'Crown gold', as a direct result of my various lines of interrogation. So, what is 'Crown gold' when it is at home?

A very important consideration in this context is whether loose gravels and bedrock cracks can be defined as "mineral strata in the UK", which is the brief official definition, see the following link (this and many other helpful links were mysteriously removed from the Crown Estate's website, so I had to retrace them from other searches).

[www.whatdotheyknow.com]

Schedule of The Crown Estate’s properties rights and interests June 2011

Under other rights, page 5 is included the following definition -

Mines Royal Gold and silver in mineral strata in the UK.

The loose gravels in a river do not fit comfortably into this definition. There is no definable strata in a gradually moving gravel bank, only various grades of rocks, silt and woody debris, remixed over time. The gold sinks to the bottom, gradually. Is it then in a strata? The Crown Estate has changed its policy, pressured by CCW and SNC, and possibly some fishing interests, so that it now refuses to issue leisure panning licences at all. The Crown can hardly demand duties for panned gold when it rules out panning as, I and many others believe, the most ecologically responsible and, possibly beneficial means of recovering native gold. Mining 'invisible' gold from rock strata is extremely damaging, not only because of the waste, changes to landscape, hidden and long term damage to water tables from unprocessed lead ore dumping etc. but also because of the carbon footprint. The energy needed to power a gram of gold per ton of rock operation is immense. The panner wastes only his own energy when on site, burning callories mainly.
If the Crown Estate applied its duty of responsible management properly, it would grade gold panning as the most responsible means of gold production, whilst grading full scale mechanical mining as thousands of times less responsible. Instead, the Crown Estate factors out all of the most damaging aspects of modern mechanical mining, on the basis of financial expediency. The Crown Estate has been heavily criticised in Parliament for its blinkered focus on money as the driving force behind its policies.

>
> Are there any other points of equally fundamental
> concern to you in this matter? You will realise
> that what I am trying to do here is the clarify
> any point of principle which is a concern to you
> and then see see what we can do to deal with
> these. That done we can then turn to examining any
> (lesser?) concern you may have in respect to the
> 'mechanics' with which the Crown chooses to give
> the principles effect. I think it might help us to
> a conclusion to consider these two matters
> separately and in the order of their precedence.
>
>
> Your commentary on the earliest Act of the
> Scottish parliament was interesting. A certain
> amount of 'me-tooism' it it, as Scotland starts to
> follow the English example?.

Not entirely 100% about this, but I have gained the impression that the Scottish Royal claim more closely shadowed the theme in Europe, where the mine owners were given better incentives much earlier, perhaps because gold mining was more developed in some European countries by the middle ages. Queen Elizabeth's advisors in the 1568 Case of Mines simply grabbed/appropriated total ownership of the gold and silver, whilst giving up all copper, tin, iron and lead ores which did not contain any gold or silver. This was a form of royal gold fever, in which Elizabeth 1 was led to believe that there could be rich gold and silver mines all over her realm. The bulk of the riches were actually in the base ores, which were as a result of intrigues not explored effectively for over one hundred and thirty years later. The Industrial Revolution may arguably have been held back, partly as a result of the Case of Mines.

Though there were
> earlier forms of parliament and their enactments
> dating back to 1215 to place some limit on the
> autocracy of the English kings and raise other
> voices in matters of justice and government, the
> first parliament to the summoned into being other
> than by royal command was in 1264. It was the
> first to be comprised of the Lords, spiritual and
> temporal, and the Commons, the latter being
> comprised of two representative knights from each
> shire (representing the 'landed' interests' and
> two burghers from each borough representing in
> Parliament, for the first time I think, trade
> interests outside of the system of land tenure..

A potentially much larger problem is that the Crown (either monarch or Crown Estate?) has failed to collect the 1592 Act's required 10% duty for all minerals on private lands, and the Crown Estate's own estates, since 1906. Has the Crown Estate, by ignoring the 1592 Act somehow prevented the Crown from collecting billions of pounds in duties on base ores and other minerals?

Hi Brian
I would gratefully appreciate any advice you could offer on panning for gold within England/ Scotland/and Wales
As this is very new to me i don't want to put my self at risk of prosecution .
Do i need a licence?if so where do i obtain one.

Kind regards
Mark

Having read through this thread and living next to the Sutherland Estates, I understand the following. Firstly, I need to seek permission from the estate to pan for gold as a leisure activity, seek landowners permission if the land isn't estate land. Pay the estate any fees it may have and reach agreement about other stipulations it might make. With landowners reach the same, agree to pay the Crown estate 5% duty on any find with a further 5% (assuming a 50/50 split between landowner and myself. Follow environmental good practice, laws and bye-laws, give due consideration to the access code and to other land users. Is this a fair summary?