on such veins are not all measured by one method. For in some places the Bergmeister gives them shapes similar to the shapes of the meers on venae profundae, in which case the head-meer is composed of three double measures, and the area of every other mine of two measures, as I have
who work dumps of scoria, etc., and provides for payment to the administrator of the mines of a capitation on the slaves employed. It does not, however, so far as we can determine, throw any light upon the actual regulations for working the mines. (Those interested will find ample detail in Jacques Flach, La Table de Bronze d'Aljustrel: Nouvelle Revue Historique de Droit Francais et Etranger, 1878, p. 655; Estacio da Veiga, Memorias da Acad. Real das Ciencias de Lisbon, Nova Serie, Tome V, Part II, Lisbon, 1882.) Despite the systematic law of property evolved by the Romans, the codes contain but small reference to mines, and this in itself is indirect evidence of the concept that they were the property of the State. Any general freedom of the metals would have given rise to a more extensive body of law. There are, of course, the well-known sections in the Justinian and Theodosian Codes, but the former in the main bears on the collection of the tithe and the stimulation of mining by ordering migrant miners to return to their own hearths. There is also some intangible prohibition of mining near edifices. There is in the Theodosian code evident extension of individual right to mine or quarry, and this "freeing" of the mines was later considerably extended. The Empire was, however, then on the decline; and no doubt it was hoped to stimulate the taxable commodities. There is nothing very tangible as to the position of the landlord with regard to minerals found on his property; the metals were probably of insufficient frequency on the land of Italian landlords to matter much, and the attitude toward subject races was not usually such as to require an extensive body of law.
In the chaos of the Middle Ages, Europe was governed by hundreds of potentates, great and small, who were unanimous on one point, and this that the minerals were their property. In the bickerings among themselves, the stronger did not hesitate to interpret the Roman law in affirming regalian rights as an excuse to dispossess the weaker. The rights to the mines form no small part of the differences between these Potentates and the more important of their subjects; and with the gradual accretion of power into a few hands, we find only the most powerful of vassals able to resist such encroachment. However, as to what position the landlord or miner held in these rights, we have little indication until about the beginning of the 13th century, after which there appear several well-known charters, which as time went on were elaborated into practical codes of mining law. The earliest of these charters are those of the Bishop of Trent, 1185; that of the Harz Miners, 1219; of the town of Iglau in 1249. Many such in connection with other districts appear throughout the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries. (References to the most important of such charters may be found in Sternberg, Umrisse der Geschichte des Bergbaues, Prague, 1838; Eisenhart, De Regali Metalli Fodinarium, Helmestadt, 1681; Gmelin, Beyträge zur Geschichte des Teutschen Bergbaus, Halle, 1783; Inama-Strenegg, Deutsche Wirthschaftsgeschichte, Leipzig, 1879–1901; Transactions, Royal Geol. Soc. Cornwall vi, 155; Lewis, The Stannaries, New York 1908.) By this time a number of mining communities had grown up, and the charters in the main are a confirmation to them of certain privileges; they contain, nevertheless, rigorous reservation of the regalian right. The landlord, where present, was usually granted some interest in the mine, but had to yield to the miner free entry. The miner was simply a sort of tributer to the Crown, loaded with an obligation when upon private lands to pay a further portion of his profits to the landlord. He held tenure only during strenuous operation. However, it being necessary to attract skilled men, they were granted many civil privileges not general to the people; and from many of the principal mining towns "free cities" were created, possessing a measure of self-government. There appear in the Iglau charter of 1249 the first symptoms of the "apex" form of title, this being the logical development of the conception that the minerals were of quite distinct ownership from the land. The law, as outlined by Agricola, is much the same as set out in the Iglavian Charter of three centuries before, and we must believe that such fully developed conceptions as that charter conveys were but the confirmation of customs developed over generations.
In France the landlord managed to maintain a stronger position vis-à-vis with the Crown, despite much assertion of its rights; and as a result, while the landlord admitted the right to a tithe for the Crown, he maintained the actual possession, and the boundaries were defined with the land.
In England the law varied with special mining communities, such as Cornwall, Devon, the Forest of Dean, the Forest of Mendip, Alston Moor, and the High Peak, and they exhibit a curious complex of individual growth, of profound interest to the student of the growth of institutions. These communities were of very ancient origin, some of them at least pre-Roman; but we are, except for the reference in Pliny, practically without any idea of their legal doings until after the Norman occupation (1066 a.d.). The genius of these conquerors for systematic government soon led them to inquire into the doings of these communities, and while gradually systematising their customs into law, they lost no occasion to assert the
