Dave,
Although illustrated with Yorkshire based examples, my point was much wider. I agree that the points you make probably contributed to the dichotomy between Derbyshire and the 'rest', but there must be many more factors. Using a longish chronology, the Yorkshire mineral lords tended to fight shy of involvement in the actual mining - though that changed from time to time. You are right about the control of smelting though - that tended to be jealously guarded. Neverthless, the absence of capitalist lead smelters from that aspect of the industry does not appear to have stopped them (and other capitalists) investing in mines.
I'm not so sure about the effect of the Barmoot. There were Barmasters at Kettlewell, Conistone and Hebden until the end of mining in the late 19th century. There is still a Barmaster at Kettlewell, but it is a well kept secret. Doh!
Ian rightly points out the problems associated with those levels which were driven beyond one mineral lord's boundary into another liberty. The Whites of Bewerley were convinced that large amounts of water and mud would flow down the 56 fathom joint level which linked the Cockhill Level to the Craven Cross Mine, in Appletreewick. Having been into the joint level, most of the mud was theirs!
Yes, leases are often a lexicon of mining terms (and include minerals, like Tin, which would never appear in the Pennines), but I had ignored them. There are still references to soughs though, as Ian says, drainage levels usually served as haulage routes as well.
Sorry for not including the reference to pre-Conquest mining, it is:-
Luke, Yvonne "Forgotten 'Clouds' and the mining landscapes of the 1st millennium A.D." British Mining No.78. Memoirs 2005, pp.149-180.
Regards,
Mike
|