CHAPTER XIII

MINING ¹ PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN CAPITALISM

In the beginning mining was a matter of surface operations. Turf and bog iron ore, as in interior Africa, and alluvial gold as in Egypt, are probably the most important mining products of primitive times. As soon as underground work was undertaken, and shafts and galleries had to be driven, considerable expenditures of labor and material goods were necessary. These were exposed to extraordinary hazards, for one could never tell to what distance a vein would be productive or would return the important operating expenses which the mine required. If these were not kept up, the mine went to ruin and the shaft was in danger of “drowning.” The result was that underground mining was undertaken co-operatively. Where this happened there developed an obligation to the industry, as well as a right, on the part of the associates; the individual could not withdraw from the establishment without endangering the group. The unit of operation was small to begin with. In the early middle ages, not more than two to five men worked in the same shaft.

Among the legal problems which developed in connection with mining, the first in order is the question, who has the right to carry on mining at a given place. This may receive an answer in various ways. First, it is possible that the mark association may dispose of the right, though positive examples of this are not found in the sources. Again, it is conceivable that, in contrast with tribal operation, the right to these exceptional finds may inhere in the tribal chieftain; but this also is uncertain, in Europe at least.

In the periods for which we possess more than mere guesses the legal situation is covered by two possibilities. Either the right to quarry is treated as pars fundi, the owner of the surface being also owner of what lies beneath it (though this relates to the overlord’s title to the land and not that of the peasant) or, all hidden treasures are “regalia” ; the political ruler, that is the judicial lord, a royal vassal or the king himself, disposes of them and no one, not even the holder of the land himself, can carry on mining without a concession from the political authority. This regale on the part of the political ruler was founded in the first place on the interest in the possession of precious metals in connection with coinage. Other possibilities arose in case the finder was taken into account either by the landholder or the lord of the regale. Today the dominant principle is freedom of mining; anyone has a right to prospect for minerals under specific formal requirements, and the finder who has secured a license and discovered a vein may exploit it even without consent of the landholder, on condition only of payment for damage inflicted. The modern system of free mining could be built up more easily on the basis of the regale than on that of feudal land law. If the landholder possessed the right, he excluded everyone from the possibility of seeking for minerals, while the lord of the regale, under some conditions might have an interest in attracting labor into the exploitation. In detail, the history of the development of mining law and the mining industry took the following course.

We have very little information regarding the earliest industry outside the occident,—in India, and Egypt, for example, as to the mining works on Mount Sinai operated by the earliest Pharaohs. The mining organization of Greco-Roman antiquity is better known. The silver mines of Laurion belonged to the Athenian state, which leased the operation and distributed the yield to its citizens. The Athenian fleet which won the victory of Salamis was built through the renunciation of the silver by the citizens for a period of years. How the mines were operated we do not know. Some indication might be drawn from the fact that some very wealthy individuals owned mining slaves; Nicias, the commander in the Peloponnesian War, is supposed to have owned thousands, which he hired out to the lessee of the mines.

The sources for Roman conditions are not unambiguous. On the one hand the Pandects mention condemnation to mine labor, from which it would seem that the use of convict slaves or purchased slaves was normal. On the other hand, a selection of some sort must have taken place; at least the indications are that slaves who had committed any offense in the mine were whipped and expelled from mine work. In any case it is certain that the lex metalli Vipascensis, from Hadrian’s time, discovered in Portugal, indicates that free labor was already employed. Mining was an imperial prerogative, but the existence of a mining regale is not to be inferred; the emperors had a free hand in the provinces and seizing the mines was a favorite exercise of their power. The technique which the lex metalli Vipascensis indicates is in contradiction with information from other ancient sources. In Pliny for example we find a row of slaves set to work hoisting water from the bottom of the mine to the surface by passing buckets. In Vipasca on the contrary, galleries for the same purpose are established beside the outer shaft. Medieval gallery building goes back traditionally to antiquity, but in other ways much of the lex metatli Vipascensis seems to echo later medieval relations. Mining is placed under an imperial Procurator, to whom corresponds the mine master of the political overlord in the middle ages. There is also the obligation to work. The individual receives the right of driving five putei into the ground, as in the middle ages five was the maximum number of shafts. We must assume that he was obliged to keep all five in operation. If he did not utilize his right during a specified short period—shorter than in the middle ages—it was taken from him and the privilege might be taken up by anyone who was in a position to carry on the work. We find also that in the beginning there were certain compulsory payments, and if these were not forthcoming the right to the mine was again thrown open. A part of the mining fields was reserved for the fisc, exactly as later in the early middle ages, and to it also a part of the raw product had to be delivered; this was first set at half, while in the middle ages it gradually sank to a seventh or even less. The operations were carried on by associated workers with whom any participant might come to his own agreement. The association imposed obligatory payments for the socii, to raise the cost of driving galleries and shafts; if these payments failed the mining right again became free.

In the middle ages Germany took the lead over all other countries in the precious metals, while tin was mined in England. In the first instance royal mines are found here, though not on the basis of the regale but because the land belonged to the king; an example is the Rammelsberg near Goslar in the 10th century. Placer gold mining was also carried on in the royal streams, the right being granted by the king for a fee, again not on the basis of the regale but on that of control over navigable waters. Leasing of mining rights by the king is first met with under Henry II; here also the basis was not the regale but the lease of land to monasteries. In general, what was leased to the monasteries was only that to which the king had a legal right, by virtue of the control of the empire over the land. Originally the king possessed a tithing right in all mining products, which right was generally leased to private persons; but in the case of the monasteries this right is leased in the 11th century as imperial property.

Under the Hohenstaufens the relation of the political authority to mining advances a step farther. The conception of the regale which underlies the measures even of Conrad III was definitely formulated by Frederick Barbarossa; he declared that no one might obtain the licentia fodiendi without a concession from the king, for which a payment was to be made; even the feudal landlords had to get such a concession. The arrangement soon became an accepted fact, for the Sachenspiegel recognized the royal mining regale as an institution. However, the theoretical right of the king led at once to conflicts with the princes, whose right to the regale was first recognized in the Golden Bull.

The struggle over the mines between the crown and the feudal landholders is also met with in other countries. In Hungary, the king succumbed to the magnates, and if he wished to operate a mine was forced to buy the tract in question outright. In Sicily, where Roger I still recognized underground treasure as the property of the landholder, the kingdom established its claim to the regale in the second half of the 12th century. In France, the barons claimed the mining right as pars fundi down to about 1400. Then the crown obtained the victory and remained in absolute possession of the regale down to the revolution, which made the mines national property. In England, King John claimed a universal regale, especially over the important tin mines, but in 1305 the crown was forced to recognize that the king did not have the right to make mining dependent upon a concession from him. In the 16th century, under Elizabeth, the regale was restricted in fact to the precious metals, all other mines being treated as pars fundi; thus the new industry of coal mining was free from royal claims. Under Charles I, the situation again wavered, but finally the crown surrendered completely and all underground treasures became the property of the owners of the land or “landlords.”

In Germany freedom of mining, that is, freedom of prospecting, derived not from the mark community, but from the “freed mountains” (gefreiten Bergen). A “freed mountain” is a region containing minerals in which a landed proprietor may grant to anyone the privilege of operating. The Rammelsberg was still a royal establishment in the 10th century, but in the 11th century the king leased it to the city of Goslar and the monastery of Walken-ried. The monastery in turn granted the mining right to all comers on condition of payments on a free competitive basis. In a similar way the Bishop of Trent in 1185 granted to every member of a mining community made up of free workers the concession for exploiting his silver mines. This step, which suggests both the granting of markets and that of town privileges, is based on the position of extraordinary power which was obtained by the free laborers from the 11th to the 14th century. Skilled mine workers were scarce and possessed a monopoly value, and various particularistic political authorities competed among themselves in promising them advantages. These included even freedom of mining, the right to excavate to a certain prescribed extent.

On the basis of this development, the following epochs may be distinguished in medieval Germany. First, the development seems to have proceeded out of a condition of concentrated exploitation by the strongest political authority, although feudal dues paid by peasants in connection with mines are occasionally mentioned. The next and most important epoch is that in which the mine workers occupy a position of great power. This resulted in an increasing transfer of mining works to the miners with expropriation of the lords, who became reduced to the position of mere tax receivers, utilizing underground treasures as a source of rent only. The mine owner is now the cooperative association of the workers. They divide the income in the same way in which peasants divided their holdings, that is, with the strictest maintenance of equality. The “mining community” arises, including all the mining interests, that is all those who work in the mine,—later those who have work done in them—yet with exclusion of the overlords. This association represents its members in external matters and guarantees the payments to the overlord. The result was responsibility of the individual members of the mining community (Gewerken) for the costs of mineral production. Operations were strictly small scale; seven shafts constituted the maximum which might be acquired by a single miner and the shafts themselves were nothing but primitive holes. As long as the miner operated the shafts he remained possessor; if he stopped operations for even the shortest period, he lost his holding. Since the mining community jointly guaranteed the payments, the overlord entirely gave up operations on his own account. His rental right, that is his share, steadily and rapidly declined from originally half the product to a seventh and finally to a ninth.

The next epoch is that of incipient differentiation among the workers. There arises a stratum of miners who do not take part in the actual work, alongside another of those who work but are dependent upon those who do not; hence, a development similar to that of the domestic system in industry. This condition was reached in many places as early as the 13th century although not yet predominant. Limitations on the shares were maintained however; large scale capitalism could not develop, but only a small rentier possession, although for short periods considerable profits were possible.

The third epoch is one of increasing capital requirements, resulting especially from the ever greater extent of the galleries. As it was necessary for ventilation and pumping to dig constantly deeper tunnels, which would pay for themselves only in the more remote future, considerable advances were required. Hence the capitalist enters the mining group.

The fourth stage was one of concentration in the mineral trade. Originally, each miner received his share of the product in kind, to do with as he pleased. In the face of this arrangement the mineral dealer was in a position to secure actual control over the output. His influence increased, and the typical aspect of the development is the appearance of wholesale dealers in minerals, especially in the 16th century.

Under the pressure of this situation the handling of minerals passed increasingly into the hands of the miners’ general organization (Gewerkschaft) as a group, as in this way the miners sought to secure protection from the power of the dealers. This had the further consequence that the general union became director of operations, while originally the individual miner operated independently. A still further consequence was that the union became organized as a capitalistic association, with capital accounting, and that the share of the miners in the product came to them only through the treasury of the union. There came to be a periodical accounting, every individual worker receiving debits and credits according to his performance.

In detail, the development of the organization prior to the appearance of modern capitalism proceeded in the following way. The lord was forced by the union of the mine workers to renounce interference in operations; the miners (Gewerken) forbade his officials to enter the shafts and only the members of the association had rights of control over each other. The obligation to operate was maintained, though no longer in the interests of the lord, but rather in that of the miners’ association (Genossenschaft), which was responsible for the quit-rents. The parallelism with the Russian village, where the individual remains attached to the soil, in spite of the abolition of serfdom, is apparent. A further step was definite appropriation in shares by the miners. It is a matter of controversy how the shares were arranged, whether they were originally physical shares out of which later Kuxe or abstract shares developed. All the wage workers belonged to the mining community, but the miners’ organization included only owners of shares. How early the union (Gowerkschaft) appeared is doubtful, but it is certain that the membership of the mining community and of the miners’ organization ceased to be identical.

After the mine workers had come into possession not only of the means of production but also of the raw material, there began a process of differentiation within the working class in the mining industry, and the disintegration which called forth capitalism. The increasing demand for mine workers resulted in increasing accessions to the class. The older workers, however, refused to accept the new arrivals into the community (Gewerkschaft). They became “Ungenossen,” non-members, wage-earners in the position of apprentices in the service of an individual master who paid them on his own account. Thus arose associate or dependent miners, and an inner differentiation began, corresponding to the external one. Out of the distinction in position among individual workers in the production process arose a distinction in regard to the right to work in the mines. The increased need for specialization led, for example, to an increasing demand for mining smiths. These early became wage workers who in addition to a money wage received also a fixed share in the product. The difference in yield among different shafts also worked in the direction of differentiation. Originally the guild principle applied, in that the workers’ organization possessed the right of sharing as a whole in any especially productive shaft and of distributing the benefit of its yield among all the mine workers. But this came to an end and to an increasing extent distinctions arose in the opportunities of individual mine workers with regard to risks. Sometimes enormous profits were made, and sometimes the miners went hungry. Increase in the freedom of transfer of shares likewise increasingly worked for differentiation, since the members who did not participate in the work took advantage of the marketability of their shares.

Thus a purely capitalistic interest was able to make its way into the human group of the mining community. The whole process was brought to completion through the increasing capital requirement resulting from increasing depth of the works. The construction of shafts for water supply, and various demands for expensive equipment, became constantly more imperative. The increased capital requirement led to the result, first, that only the propertied associates remained miners with full mining privileges, and second, that new grants were made more and more exclusively to persons who could show command over capital. In addition, the union on its part began to accumulate property. Originally it had none: the individual mine worker had to provide for his shaft and to advance the costs, and the union intervened only when he did not fulfill his obligation to operate. Now, however, the union was compelled to assist in relation to the capital requirement because to an increasing degree the building of shafts for clearing of water in addition to those for the working of the seams became the rule; at first the construction of galleries and shafts was divided between different associations, each being assured a share in the yield of the mine. These shares in the product were a thorn in the flesh of the miners. Increasingly they sought to get the excavations into their own hands. Now the union became a possessor of capital, but the former condition remained, the individual miner being responsible for the cost of his shaft. He had to advance the costs and this was considered his most important function after he no longer shared in the actual work. As before, again, he had to provide the individual workers, to make contracts with them and pay them, a condition which became progressively rationalized. The costs which the various shafts involved varied widely. The actual workers were in a position to maintain unity against the individual “miner.” Thus finally the union itself took in hand the hiring and paying of the workers as well as meeting of the advances and costs for the shafts, and set up an accounting for the group as a whole, to begin with in small matters, on a weekly basis, and later year by year. The individual miner had only to make his advance and received the right to a share in the product, in kind to begin with. Finally the development ended in a condition in which the union as a whole sold the product and disbursed the proceeds to the individual members on a share basis.

With this development fell into disuse the measures by which in earlier times the miners had striven to limit the development of inequality among themselves. One of these was the prohibition against the accumulation of mining shares, of which originally not more than three could be united in the same hand. This and all similar restrictions had to disappear, the more certainly as the union itself took in hand the entire conduct of the industry, to an increasing extent as the fields were systematically extended, and as more frequently the enlarged fields were leased to individual shareholders. The new arrangements contrasted with previous conditions, under which the unselective admission of free workers into mining had led to an irrational technique and to irrational sinking of shafts. Furthermore the amalgamation of the unions (Gewerkschaften) progressed, to the end of systematizing operations and of suppressing unproductive shafts, a phenomenon met with in the mining of Freiberg as early as the end of the 15th century.

Such phenomena are suggestive in many ways of the history of the guilds. The development having reached this stage, the lords of the regale began to interfere, from the 16th century on, joining hands for the purpose with the mine laborers. The latter, who were dependent upon the small-capitalist “miners,” suffered under the lack of planning and the hazardous character of the industry, as did the individual miners themselves, while at the same time the income of the holder of the regale was decreased. Through interference of the lords of the regale, in the interest of the profitableness of the lease as well as in the interest of the workers, unitary mining rights were established, out of which commerce in minerals developed. These rights are the immediate forerunner of the great capitalistic development; they rest on the basis of a rational technical and economic conduct of the industry in general. As a rudiment of the early development there remained the peculiar position of the mining community in the guild-like organization of the workers. On the other hand, the rational union was created by the lords of the regale, as a capitalistic organ of operation, with abstract shares, regulating the obligation of making advances and the right of exploitation. (Originally the number of Kuxe was 128.) The union as a whole employed the workers and dealt with the purchasers of the mineral.

Alongside the mines but independent of them were the smelteries. In common with the mines they belonged to the class of industries which took on relatively early the large scale character. For their operation charcoal was necessary; hence the large forest owners, that is the feudal lords and monasteries, were also typical smeltery owners of early times. Occasionally, though not in the majority of cases, the ownership of a smeltery was combined with mining. Small scale operations dominated down into the 14th century, so that for example a single English monastery might own no less than forty small furnaces. But it was also in connection with the monasteries that the first large furnaces were established. Where smelting and mining were in different hands, the ore buyers came in between, forming from the beginning a guild constantly at war with the miners’ unions (Gewerkschaften). In their policies they are distinguished by the most unscrupulous methods, but in any case we must recognize in their combinations the germ of the first gigantic monopolies which appear at the end of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th century.

Finally, some notice must be given to the most valuable and most crucial of all products peculiar to the western world, namely coal. Even in the middle ages it was increasing slowly in significance. We find that the monasteries started the first coal mines; the mines of Limburg are mentioned in the 12th century, those of Newcastle began production for the market as early as the 14th, while in the 15th the production of coal was begun in the Saar district. But all these enterprises produced for the requirements of consumers, not those of producers. In London, in the 14th century, the burning of coal was forbidden because it polluted the air, but the prohibition was futile; the English exportation of coal increased so rapidly that special offices had to be established for gauging the shipping.

Smelting of iron with coal instead of charcoal first begins to be typical in the 16th century, thus establishing the fateful union of iron and coal. A necessary result was a rapid deepening of the mine shafts, and the technology was confronted with the new question, how can water be lifted with fire? The idea of the modern steam engine originated in the galleries of mines.