PDA

View Full Version : Royalty Master



pompylen
22-06-2006, 6:25 PM
My gg grandfather was a miner for some years but on the 1880 census he records his occupation as Royalty Master ? Would anyone have a clue what this was? any information would be a great help

Len

Agricole
09-04-2008, 6:24 PM
Hello Len,

My Great Grandfather was also a Royalty Master on the 1881 census. His name was Thomas Herrington. I believe Royalty Master meant he had a licence to mine coal.

Hope this helps,

Christine

peter nicholl
09-04-2008, 7:47 PM
|banghead| This question was asked a little while ago, but blowed if I can find it now:o, but from what I remember, Len is spot on. They didn't own the Mine.
Peter
Doh, I see you've already found it under coseley's thread.

coseley
11-04-2008, 9:37 AM
Hi Agricole,

A copy of your reply to Len was posted to my e-mail Inbox. Thanks for clearing this up. I have done a bit more research since I first posted my query. It appears that Royalties on the amount of coal mined had to be paid to the owner of the mine.

Regards,
Barbara

Agricole
12-04-2008, 11:52 AM
Hi Barbara,

Thanks for clarifying "Royalty Master" in greater depth for me.

Regards
Christine

fogmog
25-04-2008, 11:21 PM
Hi
My g.g.grandfather in his will states his occupation as Retired Royalty Master am I correct, after reading all your replies, in thinking that either he had a licence to mine coal and that he paid royalties to the mine owner? Or, he could have owned the mine and accepted royalties? Their is a list of mine owners and one of the names in the list for Parkfields mines is Geo. Hodgetts and Co. I think this gentleman was my g.g.grandfather.
Thanks Fogmog

coseley
27-04-2008, 2:13 PM
Hi Fogmog,

Is the List you refer to "Colleries of the U.K. at Work in 1880"? I have seen the Parkfield mine on there. Ash Leasons Mine - Bilston - owner John Smout is the one I am interested in. John was my gr gr grandad and like yours, is named as the owner. He lived in Ettingshall and then Coseley. Other relatives and various people I have asked say there were lots of small mines in the area and that they were mined on licence from the owner. To me if someone is listed as the owner then they must be the owner and not someone leasing the mine but I haven't managed to verify this point yet. Have been trying to trace documents relating to the mine but so far no luck. Have sent away for copy of John's Will if there is one in the hope it will shed some light on this. A recent article in the "Black Country Bugle" referred to royalties having to be paid on the coal to the owner.
Regards,
Barbara

mfwebb
27-04-2008, 3:01 PM
In my many years working in the UK Coal Industry, I have never come across the term "Royalty Master". I can however clear up any confusion there may be regarding the payment of Royalties. Royalties were payments made by the person mining the coal to the person who owned the coal and had little to do with who owned the mine.

In the days before the UK coal industry was nationalised (1947) and before the coal itself was taken into public ownership (1942), royalties were paid by the mining companies to the coal owners under the terms of a mining lease based on the tonnage of coal extracted. Most coal owners had no connection with the mining companies -- they were large land owners who happened to still retain the rights of ownership in the coal beneath their land, and they leased the mining rights in return for payment of a tonnage royalty. There are many tales of impoverished land owning families of the early 18th century who made a fortune out of royalty payments in the late 18th and 19th centuries simply because they were sitting on acres and acres of coal.

Plans of mine workings were kept from the very early days of mining to enable royalties to be calculated, leading to many plans before 1911 (when mine working plans became a statutory requirement) being inaccurate -- depending on which side surveyed the mine and kept the plans. If the mine company surveyed and kept plans there was an incentive to record "short workings" i.e understating the amount of coal worked to avoid royalty payments. On the other hand, if the coal owner surveyed and kept the plans there was an incentive to record "long workings" i.e. overstating the amount of coal worked to get more in royalty payments.

This doesn't answer the meaning of "Royalty Master" however. It could refer to the person entitled to receive the royalty payments but they would invariably be landowners and, I feel sure, would not describe themselves with the meaningless term of Royalty Master. Similarly, if it referred to the person paying the royalties I would expect them to describe themselves as "Mine Owner".

My guess is that it could be an early or coloquial term for a person of my profession -- a mining surveyor. Someone whose profession it was to survey mines on behalf of someone, produce plans and calculate Royalty Payments due from one party to the other -- hence the term Royalty Master.

This is pure speculation on my part, but with my knowledge and experience of coal mining and the drafting and interpretation of mining leases, the term Royalty Master does not sit comfortably with me as a term for either the person who paid or received royalties.

Just my thoughts.

coseley
28-04-2008, 8:45 AM
Thank you Malcolm for taking the time to give such a comprehensive and thoughtful answer. It is very much appreciated.

Barbara

Peter Goodey
28-04-2008, 9:37 AM
Don't forget that employment practices were very different back in genealogical times. Miners were not necessarily directly employed by the mine.

I think you may find that a Royalty Master was a sort of foreman or gang master. The Royalty Master would agree the price of the coal delivered to the management and would be responsible for dishing out the appropriate share to the miners in his team. The distribution often took place in the pub.

mfwebb
28-04-2008, 10:45 AM
Don't forget that employment practices were very different back in genealogical times. Miners were not necessarily directly employed by the mine.

I think you may find that a Royalty Master was a sort of foreman or gang master. The Royalty Master would agree the price of the coal delivered to the management and would be responsible for dishing out the appropriate share to the miners in his team. The distribution often took place in the pub.

I agree with Peter that employment practices were different back in "genealogical times", but I have not come across the practice of monies being divvied up in the pub. Sounds perfectly feasible though, particularly in areas where coal mining was relatively small scale -- such as the Forest of Dean for example, but that is a special case altogether.

In the traditional mining areas, coal mining was usually a fairly large-scale operation where the miners would usually be employed by the mine on piece-work -- getting paid a set rate for an amount of coal cut. Maybe this was extended to a gang-master operation where the GM would be paid the agreed price then share it out amongst his "gang" -- but, knowing how mining operated in those days, I would not have thought this was a common practice.

But the term Royalty Master, again, doesn't sit comfortably with me for this type of operation. The term "Royalty" has a specific meaning in mining terminology -- a sum of money paid by a lessor to a lessee for the right to extract the coal (or any other mineral for that matter) under the lessor's property.

Perhaps the person who started this thread could tell us where the Royalty Master in the census was -- sorry if I have missed that bit of information.

fogmog
29-04-2008, 3:03 AM
First of all thank you to all of you for your comprehensive answers. You have no idea how many people I had asked before trying the forum. I echo Barbara in thanking you for your detailed explanation Malcolm
Yes Barbara, the list was "Colleries of the UK at work in 1880." My g.g.grandfather was George Hodgetts and he lived in Parkfields Road and also in the Cockshutt colliery cottages which I believe are in Ettingshall.
I believe the mines in the area were known as Gin Pits and were opencast surface type mines. I think I have read somewhere that the coal seam in the area was 30 foot thick and very near the surface. Lucky for the ancestors as it was certainly a lot healthier than deep pit mining. You are making the same point re ownership that seemed logical to me. If the Gin Pits were small, (relatively speaking), could not they have owned the mine but paid royalties on the coal to the person who owned the land?
I believe in those days the landowner could also claim whatever was under the ground which is what Malcolm is saying. But I agree Malcolm it still doesn't explain the 'master' part of Royalty Master.
Malcolm the term came from my g.g.grandfather's will where it states he is a Retired Royalty Master. In the census he is known as a Coal Dealer. In the will the only property it mentions is real estate which doesn't indicate that he owned a mine but could mean he owned the rights to a mine. Perhaps in owning the rights, (or licence) to mine meant he could allow others to mine within the boundaries of his, 'rights,' and he was paid royalties by these others from which a proportion went to the land owners. ???????
Fogmog

mfwebb
29-04-2008, 9:11 AM
In the old days, a person owning land owned everything beneath that land down to the centre of the earth. Gold and silver have belonged to the Crown for many centuries; petroleum and gas products became crown property in 1933; and coal vested in the state in 1943. Everything else beneath the surface still does belong to the landowner.

“Gin Pits” was a colloquial term for surface or near-surface mining and in those days they were relatively small-scale operations. Where I come from in Yorkshire the colloquial term was “Day Holes” because the mine workings were very shallow and near the surface and you could always see daylight behind you. There was no big investment needed to dig a day-hole – a shovel and a bucket, a few wooden props -- and a total disregard for one’s own safety. When there was a danger that the day-hole would collapse they simply abandoned it and dug another one a few yards away.

It is quite feasible that a very small operation employing a handful of men could have worked coal in this way legitimately, paying royalties to the land owner for the coal mined. However, because the workings were so close to the surface, the surface would collapse very quickly and render the land virtually useless for anything and therefore worthless. I doubt if any landowner worth his salt would grant a licence to mine coal in such circumstances under land used for growing crops or grazing animals. Such operations were usually done illegally by “one-man” operations on a quick in, quick out basis before anyone found out.

“Bell Pits” is another colloquial term for this kind of mining but is usually associated with the mining of ironstone, although did apply to coal also. A short vertical shaft was sunk into the coal, maybe 20 feet below the surface, and then widened out at the bottom all the way round so it looked like a bell when looked at in elevation. When there was a danger of collapse they simply pulled out and sank another bell pit not far away. This again caused havoc on the surface and rendered it virtually worthless so the legal mining was usually confined to waste land.

During my years dealing with coal mining subsidence claims, I came across many instances of damage caused to property by a collapse of unrecorded shallow workings at depths of 50 feet or much less. The fact that there were no plans or records of the workings is a clear indication that they were worked unlawfully and no royalties were paid on the coal extracted. It was more widespread than you might think, and much of it must have been associated with lawful mining from well-known coal mines by well-respected mining companies of the time.

But I’m on my professional subject now and boring everyone – I apologise.

If your gg gf was a Retired Royalty Master in his Will, and described himself as a Coal Dealer in the census, then your assumptions are quite possibly correct. Assuming he worked coal legally, he may have been the lessor of coal and paid royalties to the land owner for the coal worked then paid miners to extract coal which he then sold on. I interpret the term Coal Dealer as being a middle-man – someone who bought coal from the mines and then sold it on to someone else at a profit; rather like the coal dealer of today who buys coal from the local coal depot at wholesale prices and sells it on at retail prices to householders.

If this is the case with your gg gf then he must have been dealing coal in a big way if he had the licence to mine and was liable himself for the royalties to the landowner.

The reason I say this is because Mining Leases usually carried provision for payment of “advance royalties” – regular payments made on a monthly or annual basis to be deducted from the royalties due after the coal was mined. This was to prevent the coal being tied up in a long-term lease without any financial benefit to the landowner. It meant that the lessor had a great incentive to work the coal quickly to avoid the outlay of large sums in advance royalties with no income from the coal.

In gg gf’s Will is there any mention of any debts owed to anyone who could be interpreted as a landowner who would have a royalty claim against him, or is everything tied up in the term “real estate”? A transcript of the Will would be useful if you care to PM me.

Coal Dealer I can explain – but the term Royalty Master does still elude me somewhat and I am still not convinced that any of the assumptions any of us have made is the correct one although they all remain possibilities.

coseley
29-04-2008, 9:13 AM
This is becoming increasingly interesting. I started the thread because I found my granddad on the 1901 census described as a Royalty Master. My family comes from Coseley in the Black Country. If you type in "Coal Butty" on the internet you will find a site which describes the "Butty" system. This was operated in the early 19th century. Coalminers were not directly employed by owners but by a contractor called a "Butty". They indeed quite often paid men in pubs or anywhere else. In those days men were often paid in tokens which could only be spent in certain shops even if goods could have been bought more cheaply elsewhere. I think that possibly the Butty was known as a gangmaster.

Best wishes,
Barbara

Peter Goodey
29-04-2008, 4:12 PM
The share of the mine available to the royalty master could be quite small. An occupational search of the 1881 census shows one particularly helpful entry of "Royalty Coal Master Employing 9 Men & 1 Boy".

mfwebb
30-04-2008, 9:12 AM
This thread has really fired my interest now as the term "Royalty Master" is not one I recognise from my 40 years in the coal industry.

An occupation search for “Royalty Master” in the 1881 census reveals 6, all in Staffordshire (3 of them in Sedgley)

Thomas Cole and Richard Taylor are described as “Royalty Master”.

Thomas Elvington, is referred to as a “Royalty Coal Master employing 9 men and 1 boy”.

George Stokes is also a “Royalty Coal Master”.

Adam Flavell is a “Royalty Master” in 1881 but by 1891 seems to have come down in the world as he is described simply as a “Coal Miner”.

Godfrey Perkin is described as a “Royalty Master Coal Pit” and living in the same street in 1881 is David Heald described as a “Retired Coal Charter Master”

The interesting one, though, is Charles Kidson.

In 1881, Charles is described as “Royalty Master” and in 1891 as “Colliery Owner”. Going back in time, in 1871 he is described as “Charter Master employing 44 men, 15 boys and 11 girls” and before that in 1861 he is a “Butty Miner Coal”.

Assuming that Charles went up in the world in each successive census, he started as a Butty Miner at age 30, was a Charter Master employing 70 people at the age of 40, was a Royalty Master at 50 and by his 60th year he was a Colliery Owner. His son is described as “Colliery Manager” – presumably the manager of his father’s mine. For my own peace of mind and interest, I might just do a little bit more detailed research into Mr Charles Kidson.

This doesn’t tell us any more about the actual term “Royalty Master” but I thought the travel through time of Charles Kidson to be quite interesting. It might give us a type of hierarchy in the coal industry in Staffordshire at that time.

mfwebb
30-04-2008, 5:08 PM
Since my post earlier today I have been doing some further research.

Someone mentioned the term “Butty” earlier in this thread, and the term charter-master came up in the 1881 census. The following are extracts from a book entitled "Gresford: The Anatomy of a Disaster":-

“In his earlier manifestation the Butty or Charter Master was in essence a middle man. The colliery owner sank the shafts and provided the wherewithal to raise the coal. An agent supervised technical development, marketing and legal and financial matters, and the Butty agreed to get the coal out at a price per ton. He was, to all intents and purposes, the boss underground. He took on his own labour, paid the wages and provided the necessary tools and equipment for the job, for which he sometimes charged the workmen. In return for having these burdens taken from their shoulders, owners and managers gave the charter masters virtually a free hand in the running of the pit with the result that, in the words of one authority ‘these men dreaded inspection by the owner almost as much as the owner by the Government’. They were hated by their own labour force, not only in their role as employer but because their profitable operation of the pits enabled them to branch out into other activities, notably the ownership of shops and public houses which the colliers and their wives were expected and often compelled to patronise”.

“Evidence of Thomas Barrow: ‘I am a charter master to Mr H Darby at the Bye Pit, Brymbo. We are nine contractors (butties) in partnership and we employ 180 men and boys. This is the principal pit in North Wales’.”

“Evidence of Thomas Jones: ‘I am a charter master at the Engine Pit. We are four partners employing 40 men and boys. I have been a charter master eight years’.”

“In the 18th and much of the 19th century most mine workers were employed not by the mine owner but by a charter master or ‘Butty’ who had agreed to get coal for a fixed price per ton. Many of these men had little capital and often paid wages in goods not cash. This wage practice, known as truck or "tommy", spread rapidly in Staffordshire in the 1790s. It became illegal in 1817, but continued in many areas. It stopped when the ‘Butty’ system ceased in the 1870s after the Coal Mines Act of 1872”.

The 1872 Coal Mines Act was the one which made it compulsory for Managers in mines to be properly trained and certificated. This may well explain why the term charter master seems to disappear after the 1871 census, possibly to be replaced by the more respectable “Royalty Master” by the time of the 1881 census.

My scenario now is that Butty was replaced by the term Charter Master, both of whom actually worked underground with, and supervised, their men and were responsible for their health and safety, such as it was. With the emphasis being on getting as much coal out with as few men as possible there was a great incentive to cut corners. After the 1872 Coal Mines Act, the charter master was no longer able to supervise his own men’s health and safety, and maybe was not able to work alongside them underground – at least not in a supervisory role. Hence the transition to Royalty Master – same man, still responsible for supplying labour, still taking the money from the owners and sharing it out amongst his men. Maybe he didn’t even get his hands dirty by then and had become more “respectable”.

This scenario would certainly fit our Charles Kidson in my earlier post, who started as a Butty, moved up to Charter Master then Royalty Master and eventually Colliery Owner in 1891 with his son employed as Colliery Manager, trained and certified under the provisions of the 1872 Coal Mines Act.

Charles Kidson’s death appears to have been registered in the September Qtr of 1899 in the Wolverhampton Registration District. I am tempted to send for Charles Kidson’s death certificate and try and trace a will.

fogmog
01-05-2008, 12:08 AM
Hi Malcolm
I would be happy to send you my g.g.grandfather's will but it is not very enlightening. In his opening instructions he asks his trustees to call in, sell and convert into money such part thereof as shall not consist of ready money and set up a trust fund. It never spells out what he has to call in and or sell. Real estate is not included as he talks about the collection of rents, proceeds of which are to support his wife and the rest be added to the trust fund.
Its quite frustrating. I don't suppose there is any other way of finding out what exactly his personal estate was?
I agree with you Malcolm that how the mining of the coal was organised is fascinating and really quite involved. The belief of the times was still very much that a true gentleman did not soil his hands with trade which explains a lot really. The poor coal miner himself didn't have much of a chance did he?
Cheers Fogmog

mfwebb
01-05-2008, 4:52 AM
Hi Malcolm
I would be happy to send you my g.g.grandfather's will but it is not very enlightening. In his opening instructions he asks his trustees to call in, sell and convert into money such part thereof as shall not consist of ready money and set up a trust fund. It never spells out what he has to call in and or sell. Real estate is not included as he talks about the collection of rents, proceeds of which are to support his wife and the rest be added to the trust fund.
Its quite frustrating. I don't suppose there is any other way of finding out what exactly his personal estate was?
I agree with you Malcolm that how the mining of the coal was organised is fascinating and really quite involved. The belief of the times was still very much that a true gentleman did not soil his hands with trade which explains a lot really. The poor coal miner himself didn't have much of a chance did he?
Cheers Fogmog

I agree that the coal miner's lot was not a happy one in those days. My ancestors were agricultural labourers in Bedfordshire and my ggf moved to Yorkshire as a young man and was a coal miner from 1866 (when he married) till 1899 when he is described as a farmer on a child's marriage certificate. I can understand the move into coal mining -- there would be greater money and security in coal at that time than in farming. He obviously spent much time trying to get out and back into farming but I still don't really know how he came to get the tenancy of a farm by 1899.

During my 30 years with British Coal I studied the history of the Yorkshire Coalfield and never came across the terms Butty, Charge Master or Royalty Master. That's why this thread has fascinated me so much. Those terms seem to have been a peculiarity of the Midlands and Wales.

With regard to the will I doubt if there is anything else to find out really, unless his executors made an inventory which was filed with the will -- but then if you have a copy of the will it should include everything which was proved at Probate. As you will be aware, Probate has nothing to do with the contents of an Estate -- it is merely a legal vehicle to declare a will as legally valid and to give someone the legal powers to deal with the Estate.

coseley
01-05-2008, 3:48 PM
Hallo Malcolm,

I have just looked back through my grandfather's census entries. He was born in 1875, John Thomas Smout, born Coseley in the Parish of Sedgley. On the 1891 census he was 16 and a labourer. On the 1901 census my grandfather is described as a Royalty Master, EMPLOYER. Just noticed that although I have looked at the entry on many occasions.

His father Isaac was a coalminer. He was a coalminer all his life and never described as anything else. His grandfather, however, John Smout b 1815 was a coal miner and then on 1871 census described himslef as a Publican and Master Miner employing 14 men and boys. By the next census he had moved to a large detached house in Coseley which I am told he had built. There is also a record on the List of Working Mines 1880 of Ash Leasons Mine, Bilston (a short distance from where he lived) owner John Smout. I don't know how to find out more about this. Most records seem to be about Durham and the north of England.

You appear to be able to pull out specific occupations from the censuses. Is there a site please that allows you to do this or do you only have access to mining records?

Thanks for all the interesting information,
Regards,
Barbara

mfwebb
01-05-2008, 7:07 PM
Hallo Malcolm,

You appear to be able to pull out specific occupations from the censuses. Is there a site please that allows you to do this or do you only have access to mining records?

Thanks for all the interesting information,
Regards,
Barbara

The only census which allows you to do an occupation search is 1881 -- you can do that through Ancestry and I presume other sites where you can access census records.

I have no special access to mining records, although I do possess many old mining books, old leases etc accumulated over 40 years which would otherwise have found its way into a skip. I was an accumulator of paper even before I started on this family history thing 20 years ago.

I will use the information you have given about John Smout to see if I can find anything.

coseley
02-05-2008, 11:02 AM
Hallo Malcolm,

Thank you for taking so much interest and going to so much trouble. I do subscribe to Ancestry but was unaware of the access to occupations only on the 1881 census. I will have a look and see how this works. Thank you very much.
Regards,
Barbara