IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/bushst/v52y2010i1p43-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Did royalties really impact on profits to the extent that coal companies believed? A case study of the Denbighshire Coalfield, 1870-1914

Author

Listed:
  • Bethan Lloyd Jones

Abstract

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century coal companies in the UK became increasingly vocal in their condemnation of the royalty rates charged by the mineral owners of the UK. Such was the furore that a Royal Commission on Mining Royalties was set up in 1890 with a remit to investigate these concerns. However, the commission concluded that royalties were not unduly harsh and did not make up a disproportionate part of costs. This article is an attempt to establish whether the views of the coal companies had any basis in fact or whether, as Mitchell asserts, 'royalties formed a comparatively unimportant fraction of the total cost of the coal industry in the nineteenth century' (B.R. Mitchell, (1984), The economic development of the British coal industry 1800-1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 256). We start by considering royalties within a UK context and the issues that affected the methods used and the rates set. We then examine how royalties affected the profits per ton of the coal companies in Denbighshire for which archival records survive. This will enable us to determine whether Mitchell's view was correct or whether, as Fine believes, the impact can only be determined by considering the marginal impact of royalties on profits.

Suggested Citation

  • Bethan Lloyd Jones, 2010. "Did royalties really impact on profits to the extent that coal companies believed? A case study of the Denbighshire Coalfield, 1870-1914," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(1), pages 43-61.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:bushst:v:52:y:2010:i:1:p:43-61
    DOI: 10.1080/00076790903348428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00076790903348428
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00076790903348428?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:bushst:v:52:y:2010:i:1:p:43-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/FBSH20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.