In message <[log in to unmask]>, Prof. Ken J.
Smith <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Recently been studying the Mines List 1918 on internet. Three queries:
>
>1) Non-Coal Mining Company Offices
>Whilst some coal cos had offices in London, most (even amongst the larger
>ones) seem to have been content with offices at their collieries or in
>regional centres such as Cardiff & Newcastle. The majority of non-coal
>mining cos however (even many of the lesser ones) seem to have had offices
>in regional centres & many of them (again, including the lesser ones)
>offices in expensive sounding parts of London. Its obviuosly a
>generalisation but, relative to coal cos, a disproportionate number of
>non-coal mining cos seem to have had such offices. Why this difference? Was
>it just a fashion of the times, for prestige, the need to be near an
>exchange, or what?
>
I probably cannot add much regarding non-coal mining companies, but I
suspect that the situation with regard to coal mining companies is that
a large number of the companies were not much more than shells. By 1918
much of the coal industry was controlled by holding companies, e.g. The
Cambrian Combine, Powell Duffryn Group and such like for South Wales. In
Williams "The Derbyshire Miners" is a chart (page 573) which, whilst it
is undated, illustrates the point. It shows the relationship of the
Staveley Coal and Iron Company and the Sheepbridge Coal and Iron
Company. The two companies are interconnected through Williams Deacons
Bank and share a joint directorship with John Brown and Company,
Newstead Colliery Company, Yorkshire Amalgamated Collieries Limited and
Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. They jointly own the Loddington
Ironstone Company, which owns the New Cransley Iron and Steel Company
and the Bestwood Coal and Iron Company. Staveley Company controls
Markham and Company, Burton Ironstone Company, British Soda Company and
Doncaster Amalgamated. Doncaster Amalgamated has control of Thurnscoe
Housing Association, Bullcroft Housing Association, Markham Garden
Village Association, Bullcroft Main Collieries Limited, Hickleton Main
Colliery Co., Markham Main Colliery Co., Brodsworth Main Colliery Co.
and Firbeck Main Colliery Company. Meanwhile Sheepbridge controls
Sheepbridge Stokes Centrifugal Castings and Yorkshire Amalgamated.
Yorkshire Amalgamated has control of Denaby and Cadeby Co., Dinnington
Main Colliery Company, Matlby Main Colliery Co., and Rossington Main
Colliery Company. Beyond this diagram it should be remembered that the
Staveley Company controlled 7 or 8 collieries in Derbyshire and
Sheepbridge ran several others.
I suspect that the local addresses of colliery companies was, in part,
required to enable inspectors to deliver official communications at the
point of consumption.
>2) 'Collective' Mining
>Sure that's not the correct term but I don't know what else to call it! I'm
>referring, for example, to the numerous limestone quarries around
>Wareham/Swanage, all of which seem to have been small - small enough in
>most cases to have been operated by individuals, amongst whom a few
>families (such as the Bowers, Harrises, Normans & Phippards) seem to
>predominate. How did this work? I notice that, in 1918 (as opposed to 1908)
>there are a few examples of someone operating someone else's named taking,
>and that a couple of takings are shown as 'No Occupier'. Did one person
>(unnamed in the List) have primary ownership of the mineral rights & let
>them out in small parcels? Or did all those named in the List own the
>rights?
>
It would be normal for the quarrymen to operate by way of leases. I
presume that "no occupier" would refer to a quarry which wasn't being
worked but hadn't been officially abandoned.
>3) Other examples (similar on the face of it, at least) occur elsewhere,
>including (particularly) Coneygre collieries (some of which are ascribed to
>the Earl of Dudley, but there are a number of other 'Coneygre' entries not
>so ascribed), & (to with a lesser extent) Ettingshall Park & Wednesbury Oak
>collieries. Were the circumstances, in fact, same as (2)?
I would refer you to Ivor Brown's articles on Chartermasters. Sub-leases
seem to have been common in the Dudley Thick Coal District, presumably
as a very small area of the Thick Coal would support a mining operation.
Saltwells Colliery was another such operation. Many pits were sunk in
the colliery and they could well be sub-let.
>
>TYIA, Rgds,
>Ken Smith.
--
Dave Williams - [log in to unmask]
Visit the Mining History Network at
http://info.exeter.ac.uk/~RBurt/MinHistNet
for information on PDMHS Ltd., the active Mining History Society.
|