4. 1. Introduction
In the report of the Royal Commission on housing in Scotland,.published in 1917, mineral leases were described as one of the primary causes of poor housing and living conditions in Scottish mining villages. Housing for miners was provided as part of an overall mining operation. Its provision cannot be considered without reference to the legal arrangements attached to mining and the leasing of mmerals. The conditions laid down in mineral leases which governed housing provision for miners are indications of the attitude of parties to the lease towards housing.
The purpose of the chapter is to provide the necessary background for the later consideration of (a) the condition of miners’ housing in Fife mining communities and (b) the attitude of Fife coal companies to workers' housing in the first third of the twentieth century. The chapter is divided into sections which deal with land tenure and housing in Scotland, and mineral leases and legal arrangements for the provision of housing by coal companies. It will be shown that, as with local government legislation, legal arrangements between coal companies and land proprietors were often confused, unclear and under dispute, and that concern for workers' houses was generally a matter of political expediency. The chapter will illustrate the concerns of coal companies vis a vis workers' housing; in particular their pre-occupation with "acceptable" valuations of the properties.
4. 2. Land tenure and Scottish housing.
Legal arrangements governing the provision of coal company housing were derived from the regulations governing the mineral leases. These in turn were determined by the system of land tenure. Scottish tenure of land and property was based upon a feudal relationship between superior and vassal. The superior or landlord granted the property to the vassal according to a feu which was a perpetual lease on the land itself. The superior, the owner or proprietor of the land, granted the property to the vassal in return for a fixed aimual feu-duty. The superior effectively granted the vassal the use of the land or the site. The vassal in return was bound to an aimual payment often supplemented by special payments at stated intervals.^ The vassal could subfeu the land in return for payment of an increased feu. duty. This sub-feuing transaction had nothing to do with the proprietor of the property. Once the superior and vassal agreed a feu on a property the former relinquished all title to the land in return for the annual duty in perpetuity. In return for the loss of interest in the property the land superior was relieved of the burden of paying rates wliile retaining a fixed aimual income from his land.
’T he granter of a normal lease is the proprietor or landlord. A tenant may by granting a sublease become a lessor with the rights and duties of a landlord in relation to the subtenant; again the subtenant may grant a sublease in favour of another party and so on. The granter of the sublease derives his right to do so ultimately from the proprietor."^
The obligation to pay feu duty was passed down to each individual feuer and subfeuer. Feuing and subfeuing gave each participant the right and 1 Saunders, L. J., (1950) Scottish Democracy 1815-1840. Oliver and Boyd, London, p. 164.
2 Paton, G.C.H., and Cameron, J.G.S., (1967) The Law of Landlord and Tenant in Scotland. The Scottish Universities Law Institute, Aberdeen, p. 43.
opportunity to speculate in property values. Since the vassal could take out a subfeu and the subfeuee could do the same, it was in the interest of the superior to gain as high an initial feu duty as possible, as the amount of the superior's feu duty remained the same no matter how much the property increased in value. The feuer could erect buildings on the land, within the terms of the contract, and either let or sell these to private investors or owner occupiers.
Feus were expensive and vassals often subfeued to builders, or themselves erected as many houses as possible to extract a high return for their investment. Speculative builders sold their properties to either individual owner occupiers or to private investors who became Landlords and in turn let the properties to tenants. The land user, the occupier of the property, or the tenants of houses bore the brunt of the weight of the whole feuing system, as they were at the end of a chain of parties to the contract.
This system of land tenure encouraged intensive building, especially if the initial feu duty was liigh and if the increase in the value of the property was not guaranteed. In either of these instances the only way to ensure a return for investment was to build as many houses as possible on the site. This was achieved by erecting multi-storey tenements instead of single storey terraced cottages. There were no restrictions on the subdivision of property. The landlord could have as many tenants as he liked, each paying rent and a contribution to rates. Furthermore the return per individual tenant might be small but the total return was often large.3 The cost of the feu duty often led to high levels of rent which would further encourage subdivision of properties and overcrowding. Very little attention was paid to the quality of the properties or to the living standards of the occupiers. 3 Saunders, L. J., Op. cit. p. 160.
Tliis system of tenure was akin to the European method and completely different to the short lease or freehold prevalent in England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The rights of the vassal in Scotland were based upon tenure of the property whereas those of an English tenant were based upon m utual contract.^ In English contractual leases the primary rights to the property remained with the landowner and all land and buildings upon it reverted to the landed proprietor when the lease expired. The tenant had only temporary rights under the lease. The Scottish feu duty on the other hand was an annual payment in perpetuity. If the land was feued for building purposes the builder retained rights to the buildings he had erected when the feu expired. There was no "reversion of interest" to the ground landlord as was the case with the English short lease. The Scottish vassal was the sole owner of the properties he erected.^
4.3. Mineral leases and colliery housing.
Colliery housing was not erected under the feuing norm. Instead the erection of coal company housing was controlled by mineral leases which combined elements of both the feu charter and mutual contract. It was common practice well into the twentieth century for houses associated with mineral leases to be leased along with the mine. However variations were introduced when some proprietors attempted to feu their houses to coal companies, rather than lease them along with the m ineral, as feus increased their revenue.
4 Paton, G.C.H. and Cameron, J.G.S., Op. cit. p. 8.
^ Daunton, M. J., (1983) House and Home in the Victorian City. Working- Class Housing 1850-1914. Edward Arnold, London, p. 69.
Mineral leases were called "tacks" in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and the tenant was the "tacksman". Early mineral leases were of short duration usually varying from two to nine years. "Tacks" generally included some provision for housing as part of the rent of surface and mineral property. Housing provision was on a small scale however and reflected the short term nature of the coal mining operations. Original examples of "tacks" survive at the Scottish Records Office in Edinburgh and contain details of the provision of houses for miners, as can be seen from the following examples.
In a proposal for a tack at Houston colliery Linlithgow in 1796, the terms of the agreement included the building by the proprietor of the land (not the coal operator) of as many colliers' houses as were needed and the tacksman (tenant/coal operator) was to pay seven and a half per cent for the money spent by the proprietor on these houses.^ A further tack at Houston in 1803 gave the tacksman (i.e. the lessee) the right "to build houses for the accommodation of Mmself, servant and others to be employed by him in carrying out the said operation".2 By 1805 there were ten colliers' houses attached to the colliery and the tack of that year "bound and obliged" the tacksman to put the colliers' houses in good tenantable condition and to expend £100 sterling in erecting additional houses to accommodate the workers. The tenant was solely responsible for all expenses incurred in erecting necessary houses.® A later tack of 1826 stated that houses associated with the lease were to be left in good condition at the end of the lease.^ 6 SRO GRH GD 30/695 : Proposal for tack of Houston Colliery, Linlithgow, 1796.
2 SRO GRH GD 30/698 : Details of tack, Houston Colliery, 1803. ® SRO GRH G D /30/699: Tack of coal, 29 May 1805, Houston Colliery.
The example given above contains all the basic elements of leasing contracts that were to survive in mmeral leases into the twentieth century. Legal arrangements within the leasing contracts can be divided into two types; the first provided for the erection of housing by the landed proprietor, the owner of the land and minerals and the second provided for the erection of houses by the coal operator, the lessee of the land and minerals. If, as in the first type, houses were built by the proprietor prior to the lessee leasing the minerals, they were usually leased to the mineral tenant with the minerals. They then reverted to the landowner upon termination of the lease. To this end it was usually specifically stated that they were to be kept and left in good habitable condition. If, on the other hand, there were no houses at the site the mineral tenant was given the right to erect whatever was needed to accommodate liis workers. Upon the expiry of the mineral lease these was either taken over by the proprietor at a cost or disposed of by the tenant. Again it was stipulated in leases that such houses were to be maintained in habitable condition.
Until 1942, when the Coal Act of 1938 came into effect, the owner of surface land also owned all minerals underneath.^^ A coal mine therefore belonged to the owner of the ground from whom it could be held separately. A mineral lease however, was in effect a sale of the minerals to the lessee, as once the minerals were extracted they could not be replaced or recovered. This is the basic difference between a mineral lease and the lease or land or real property. In law, however, mineral leases were treated as though they
^ SRO GRH GD/30/706 : Repair of colliers houses, Houston Colliery, 1826. 10 1 & 2 Geo. 6 c. 52.
were temporary lets of property and not as outright sales.n The minerals were in effect sold to the mining operator in return for what was termed "gradual delivery" rather than a fixed rent. This return depended upon the quality and quantity of the mineral extracted. The rate of return, (the gradual delivery) called the lordship or royalty, was a proportion of the minerals taken. Royalties were generally paid on the tonnage raised, often 6d. to 9d. per ton, wliile in some areas the royalty was linked to the selling price per ton; either one seventh or one twelfth. 12
Under the mineral lease the minerals alone and not the surface land were usually let to the coal operator. The surface meanwliile could be leased to an agricultural tenant. If the surface property was leased to the mineral tenant for a purpose necessary for the extraction or treatment of the mineral there was a provision for a normal rent of the surface land in addition to the royalty payable on the minerals. The terms of mining leases usually also involved the paym ent of a minimum "certain rent", whether coal was worked or not. Certain rent was generally tied to the "expected" tonnage yield, and could be from £1 to £5 per amium, per statute acre of the whole area under lease.For example, in a mineral lease of 1912 between the Wilson and Clyde Coal Company Ltd. and the proprietors of Bandrum Estate Fife, the terms of settlement were as follows: a royalty of 4d. was to be paid on every twenty two and a half hundredw eight raised and a proportionate lordsliip on twenty hundredweight; the fixed rent was set at
Paton, G.C.H, and Cameron, J.G.S., Op. cit. p. 8.
^2 Anderson, D., (1982) Coal; A Pictorial History of the British Coal Industry.
£150 per annum commencing at W hitsunday 1913 and there were to be "breaks" eveiy two years to permit revision of the terms of the leased®
By the mid nineteenth century mineral leases were normally of long duration with breaks at definite and regular intervals to allow for renegotiation. Leases could be revised or terminated if the minerals ran out or proved difficult to extract. The duration of "long leases" varied depending on the subject of the lease. For the purposes of the Land Valuation (Scotland) Act of 1854 a long lease was 21 or 31 years for mineralsd"^ for the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act of 1857 it was 31 years^® and for the Long Leases (Scotland) Act of 1954 it was 50 years.^® Long leases of land, particularly land intended for building purposes were often granted in Scotland as alternative to feus. Tenants of long leases in effect became the proprietors of the property while the landlords were in a position similar to that of feu superiors. According to the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act 1854, a tenant with a lease of over 21 years, or 31 years in the case of a mineral lease, became the proprietor of the property and appeared thus in the valuation roll.
Mineral leases were not only granted to individuals, but also to companies incorporated under the Companies Acts.^^ In such cases however, the
SRO GRH GD 1/42/2/39 : Paper relating to minerals in Bandrum Estate Fife, 1912-1920.
14 17 & 18 Viet. c. 91. 20 7 21 Viet. c. 26. 16 2& 3E liz.2c.49.
12 1862 Companies Act, 25 & 26 Viet. c. 89; 1890 Companies A ct, 53 & 54 Viet, c. 62.
m em oranda of association stipulated that upon a company going into liquidation, the lease could be terminated by the landlord. Mineral leases could also be joint ventures where both the owner and operator shared the profits of the undertaking. In this case the proprietor had the option of taking a share in the profit instead of a stated rent or royalty.
As the nineteenth century progressed regulations concerning the provision of housing became more complicated. Coal companies were generally empowered to build whatever they needed to carry out the coal extraction, so long as the landed proprietor received a return in the form of ground rent and royalties. Under the articles of association of the Bowhill Coal Company founded in 1894 to work the coalfield at Auchterderran Parish Fife, the company was entitled to;
". .purchase, take or lease or in exchange liire, construct, erect, make or otherwise acquire, alter and maintain all buildings, houses, plant, machinery . . . requisite for carrying on the said business .. .." i®
By 1900 eighty new houses had been built under the company's mineral lease, fifty four of wliich were occupied.
Stipulations similar to these were found in most mining contracts of the period. Upon expiry of such leases disputes sometimes arose concerning responsibility for plant, machinery and housing. If the minerals were extracted, the land left was either taken over by another tenant or returned to the proprietor. But what became of the machinery plant and housing remaining on the surface in such circumstances, and who exactly was responsible for the maintenance and condition of the housing stock and for ^® SRO GRH GD/571/4 : Bundle of miscellaneous relating to the Bowliill Coal Company Fife, 1894 -1909, including the 1894 prospectus.
their occupants? From the evidence presented below it will become clear that when negotiating leases, both parties made every effort to avoid responsibility for housing stock and living conditions.
When a mineral lease, authorising the mineral tenant to erect all buildings necessary for the carrying out of the business, was being negotiated, it was general practice for the mineral tenant to insert a clause allowing him to remove liis buildings at the end of the lease, unless the landlord took over the properties at v a l u a t i o n . ^ 9 Therefore at the end of the lease the
proprietor of the land could if he wished take over the ownership of houses erected by the mineral tenants by paying their then value, less their value when either first erected or when the lease was taken out. In order to protect the owner of the land it was generally stated in leases that the coal companies were bound to m aintain the housing in good habitable condition so that the proprietor could relet or feu them without difficulty. Difficulties arose with this arrangement if the landlord did not wish to take over the properties, leaving the coal company responsible for either the sale or demolition of the properties. If, on the other hand, the houses were already owned by the landed proprietor when the lease was first taken out they were generally let to the company on condition that the company "maintained and returned them in good tenantable condition".
While straightforward in theory, in practice legal obligations in relation to housing provided for coal-miners were difficult to put into effect. It was sometimes stated that the houses were to be left in their "original state" but this was impossible to define or ascertain, especially if a prolonged period of time had elapsed since the houses were built. The precise meaning of the
phrases "good tenantable condition" and "good habitable condition" were never defined. W ith long leases the issue was further complicated as original parties were often dead, or the buildings had been taken over by another company through amalgamation.
As well as being responsible for housing under their jurisdiction, coal companies were often liable for damage, caused by the underground workings or subsidence, to surface property feued to other tenants. Coal