The following letters were originally printed in the Railway Times-, the present Publisher, think¬ ing that they deserve a wider circulation, and amongst persons to whom the Railway Times may possibly not be familiar, trusts that the talented writer of them, with whom he is personally unac¬ quainted, will not be displeased at the form in which they now appear. RATING OF RAILWAYS, To the Editor of the Railway Times. Sir, —You appear to think that injustice is being done to Rail¬ way Companies by the course which some parishes have been taking- in assessing the railways to the relief of the poor, but I cannot dis¬ cover, from what you have written, wherein the hardship consists. The Parochial Assessment Act clearly makes all property w-hich can be demised rateable, at such an amount as a solvent tenant would give for it, after deducting repairs, insurances, ic. If therefore, land which before the railway was constructed was only of the value of 20s peraci-e, but by the altered form of it a tenant will give 100 times as much, at such an amount must it be rated. If I build a house upon that acre, and a tenant can be found to give £100 a year for if, the acre then, in that shape, will be rated at 100 times its former value. You seem to think that, in rating railways so highly as some of them have been rated, the profits of the Company are being assessed, which ought not to be. But is it really so? 1 will compare a railway to a farm. To ascertain the value of land used as a farm, it is usual to make an estimate of the receipts and disbursements, and in ascertaining the disbursements, one of the items in the account is an allowance for tenants’ profits. The expenses taken from the receipts, the remainder 4 is the value of the landlord’s interest; and that is the amount at which it will be assessed, So in rating a railway. The gross re¬ ceipts ascertained, an allowance^ so muclf per cent, for locomotive power, maintenance of way, &c., and an allowance for tenants’ profits is made, and the remainder is the value of the property: and at such a sum it must be assessed whether the landlord use the farm (or the railway, as the case may be), or a stranger. It is the land in its improved state which creates the value; instead of the value arising upon cultivating it in order to produce corn, rails are attached to it, by the use of which an income can be raised, and on such account a tenant will be found to give a certain rent. Of what use would land be to the farmer if he did not use his carts, wag¬ gons, and horses, in order to produce profit, as engines and carriages are used to produce profit upon a railway? It is the laud which commands the rent, only used in these cases in a different manner ; but then, in neither case are the tenants’ profits assessed—the sum left as representing the annual value of the fee being the only amount chargeable to the relief of the poor, &e. The Kailway Company is assessed so long as it remains the occu¬ pier, but if the railway were to be demised to a stranger, together with all its rights and privileges, that tenant would be assessed, not only for the amount of the value created by his usiug the railway himself, ascertained as before described, but for the tolls which he would have the right to take of any other carriers, the carriers them¬ selves not being assessable—not being occupiers. If, however, the Company determine upon retaining the railway in their own possession, and become toll takers only, then they are liable to be assessed at the value of those tolls alone, after deducting repairs and other outgoings. It being, however, a property that can be demised possessing certain privileges, and so long as that thing is proved by their own occupation of it as tenants, it must be estimated altogether as receipts taken in the shape of fares, and ex¬ penses incurred, including tenants’ profits. This seems to me to be nothing extraordinary, for every other description of property is rated from time to time according to its value, that value varying according to its change of form and occu¬ pation. A meadow will command more than ah arable fieid—a house 5 without a license to sell beer and spirits may be worth £50 a year; but let it possess that privilege, and a tenant will be found to give £150 for it. Some would say that by so raising the rents, you are assessing the tenants’ profits; but is it so in this case any more than in assessing the railway ? the tenant gives that rent because he knows he can afford it after having secured a subsistencefor himself. I quite agree with you, however, that the principle of rating is unjust where the average profits are taken upon the whole line. Each part of the line should be assessed according to its earnings, it being evident that the traffic upon one part may very much exceed the traffic upon another. It is one thing to object to the principle of i a ling railway property generally, and another to the proper mode of ascertaining the amount. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES PENFOLD, Surveyor Croydon, November, 1843. ~ BATING OF RAILWAYS. Sir, —The great importance of this subject to the community at large, and the interest it is exciting, induce me to hope that you will allow room in your useful and well conducted Journal for the following arguments for and against a principle of rating railways used by a learned counsel upon two occasions. The whole argument on both sides of the question is so very clearly urged by one of the first and most able men of the day, that it cannot but be interesting to all those who are engaged in railway or parish matters. The argument for and against is placed in juxta¬ position, that your readers may at once see what so able a man can urge on either side of a question. Argument for Micheldever Parish. The legislature contemplated the user of the railway by other parties employing their own Argument for the Grand Junc¬ tion Railway Company. He submitted that the Com¬ pany were not liable to be rated for the property realised 6 locomotive engines, and from such parties the Company were entitled to receive certain tolls. This was one mode in which the defendants might get mo¬ ney for the use of their railway. Another mode was by the defendants themselves provid¬ ing locomotive power and be¬ coming carriers. This mode was also contem¬ plated by the legislature. Of the general principle go¬ verning the assessment of poor- rate there can be no doubt, whether the owner himself be the occupier of the property, as in this case, or whether he let it to another person; the rate is to be imposed upon the value of the rent which a solvent te¬ nant would pay for such occu¬ pation in order to carry on bu¬ siness there. It is clear then by the general law of the land this railway is liable to be rated according to the sum which a tenant would pay for it in order to have the privilege of conducting a carry¬ ing trade. It is indeed said that qua carriers they stand only in the same position as any other of the public who should think proper to use engines and car¬ riages on the line; but that is by them as carriers upon the railway. He admitted they were liable to be rated as occu¬ piers of the laud, and they were liable to be rated for the in¬ creased value given to the land by the construction of the rail¬ way, and also for the tolls re¬ ceived for the carriage of goods, because the receipt of those tolls was incident to the occupation of the land: and in those tolls he included the tolls which would be payable by the Com¬ pany for goods, supposing those goods had been carried by any other persons. The Act of Parliament threw open the use of this railway as carriers to the public at large and it appeared from the case that there were persons not con¬ nected with the Company who 7 not so. In point of fact it is notorious that the carrying trade can be conducted only by those persons who have the sta¬ tions and other conveniences provided, by the Company on the land; the land is the sub¬ ject of the rate, and in the esti¬ mation of its value, houses, shops and other buildings on it, must be taken into considera¬ tion. Here then is the land on which the iron rails are laid, there are the stations erected for the purpose of managing the passengers and luggage traffic, and adapted therefore for the carrying trade; how then can it be doubted that upon the rent which a tenant would give for the use of the land with the iron rails laid on it, and of the buildings used as stations, the rate must be assessed ? It is true indeed that a power is given to the public to run their own engines and carriages upon the line and thereby to conduct a carrying trade. Even conceding that under existing circumstances, that as an avail¬ able power it does not affect the question, it is a privilege which, if available, diminishes the value of the right of the Company, and which would equally diminish the value of actually carried on the business of carriers on the railway, in¬ dependently of the Company, providing their own locomo¬ tives, coke, carriages, aad wa¬ tering places, and only paying the Company the tolls payable by Act of Parliament. This case was, therefore, quite dif¬ ferent from the case of the South-Western Railway. In that case it appeared that there were no other persons acting as carriers on the rail¬ way, and it was not probable there ever would be, and, there¬ fore, the Court decided that the Company was rateable upon its profits; but in the present case, there were other parties who absolutely exercised the right of carriers. It would not be contended that those parties were liable to be assessed to the rate on their profits as car- 8 the railway to a lessee, but riers; and surely, therefore, it does not make the rent the Company was not liable less the test of rateability, for those profits which they though the privilege would, if realised by exercising a right available, decrease the rent over the railway, which they which a tenant would be dis- possessed in common with all posed to pay. the world. Suppose the Company were in fact, to demise their stations and railway, and put the lessee in the same position as them¬ selves as to the right of carry¬ ing, but reserving to them¬ selves the right to receive the tolls in respect of any other carrying by strangers; surely the rent so paid, as well as the value of the tolls received, must be taken on which to found the estimate of the amount of the rate to be imposed. The Company have, under the powers conferred upon them by the legislature, invested their capital in land, and there¬ by improved its value in a par¬ ticular manner: for the im¬ proved value a tenant would give a consideration as rent, and why is the general prin¬ ciple to be departed from, that the rent is to be taken to deter¬ mine the amount of the rate- ability ? There is, certainly, no diffi¬ culty in the Company demising The Company could not de¬ mise the right of using the rail- 9 their land, with their privileges, to a third party. They are ex¬ pressly empowered to demise the tolls, and the fee-simple of the railway land being vested in them, they have at common law a power to demise it. They have, in point of fact, been such demises, viz., the Bristol and Exeter Railway to the Great Western Railway,the Aylesbury Railway to the Lon¬ don and Birmingham Railway; and there are many other cases. Then it will be contended that there is something in the pecu¬ liar provisions of the Act under which this railway was made, which exempts it from the ap¬ plication of the general princi¬ ple of assessment to the poor- rates. The 157th section is relied on ; that section is— “And be it further enacted, that in all cases in which the said Company of proprietors shall carry for their own pro¬ fit any passengers, &c. a sepa¬ rate account shall be duly kept, showing the amount of rates or tolls which would have been received by the said Company for the use of the said railway in respect of such passengers, &c., if carried by other parties, and the overseers of the poor of way to one, for every one pos¬ sessed that right already. They might agree to demise their rights on the railway to any other person, and agree not to exercise the right of carriers on that railway: but in that case it would be a disposing of the good-will of a business, and that was not liable to be rated. The Act required that they should keep an account of all tolls received from other persons for the carriage of goods, and that account should be open to the overseers of the parishes through which the railway passed. And also an account of the tolls which would be payable on goods carried by themselves, which would also be open to similar inspection. Tbe'Grand Junction Company, it appear¬ ed, also exercised the right of carriers on the Manchester and Liverpool Railway, paying that Company for the use of the railway, and finding their own locomotive carriages, &c„ and upon that trade they realised a profit. Other parties exercised a similar right. So it appeared 10 the several parishes through which the said railway shall pass, shall have free access to, and liberty to inspect the same at any time during the first 14 days in the months of July and January in such year.” This is a clause in an Act of Parliament introduced by, and passed at the instance of a pri¬ vate body, and must not be taken to alter the general law, unless it does so in plain and undoubted terms. The Paro¬ chial Assessment Act, too, is subsequent to the Act for form¬ ing this railway, and that ex¬ pressly enacts that the rate shall be estimated as hereditaments, at the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, with certain specific deductions. If the rate is to be laid on the toils only, the Company may reduce the amount to any sum they please, and as long as they are themselves carriers, without diminishing their profits. The Act of Parliament fixes the maximum of the tolls to be levied and nothing more. that there were here various parties acting as carriers on this railway, and competing one with the other; and the ques¬ tion really was, whether one set of their carriers was to be rated, and all the others exempted. The case, therefore, differed materially from the South- Western case, inasmuch as the South-Western propietors were exclusive carriers on their own line. If the profit were such that no one could make except by virtue of a demise from the owner of the land, then that profit was rateable, inasmuch as it was a profit derived from the occupation of land; but if the profitcould be made with¬ out such demise, then it was not rateable. Between such arguments it is difficult to decide, but it appears to me that if strangers being carriers, could be said to be in occu¬ pation of the railway, they would be assessed in the same way as the Company, viz., upon an amount left over and above their expenses, 11 one item in the account of disbursements being a tenant’s subsistence. But as the occupier only caffbe assessed,-{the Company is rated for the annual value of the fee, from whatever source it may arise whether from carrying- combined with tolls taken from others, from tolls alone, or from a rent received from a strauger for the whole line with its privilege of taking tolls from others. It seems from the argument for the Company that so long as a rail¬ way is exclusively occupied by the Company, the test of the annual value is what a tenant would give for it with its privileges, but the moment a stranger runs a train upon it then they are not to be as¬ sessed for the profits on the carrying. What difference the act of others merely exercising an user for which they pay a consideration to the occupier makes, does not readily occur to me. If a man hold some land of a given value, he is rated to that extent only; but if he grant a right of way through that land to a neighbour, in order to enable him to approach his property on the other side of this land, and for which he pays a valuable consideration, the land so increased in value owing to this circumstance is liable to be rated to the occu¬ pier to that amount, in addition to his former assessment, proving thereby, that in addition to the annual value of the railway created by the occupier, he is liable to be rated for any further proceeds arising from an user only. The great distinction is, that the occupier, only (whether owner or not), is the party to be rated as being in possession of the heredita¬ ment, and of whom alone the overseer can recover; and he must be rated at the amount of all the produce arising out of suck heredita¬ ment, whether from his own use of it solely, or combined with stran¬ gers. The toll which the stranger pays to the occupier is taken to re¬ present the rent which he can pay for his use of the railway, after de¬ ducting his own profit; and iff ascertaining the gross receipts of the occupier, these tolls or rents are added to his own receipts. Thus, although the carriers cannot themselves be rated for the produce of the hereditament caused by their use of it, yet it is assessed through the medium of the occupier. The real point to arrive at is, the net annual earnings of the pro¬ perty ; and as carrying cannot be practised loithout the heredita¬ ment, any earnings through that medium are rateable, although the 12 rale is not collectable in that shape. In each case it must be remem¬ bered that an allowance for a tenant’s subsistence forms one of the deductions from the gross receipts, and that it is only the clear annual value of the fee-simple which it is contended for as liable to be rated. It has been observed, that you may as well assess Coutts’s bank¬ ing-house at the profits which the bankers make, as to assess the profits made by carrying on a railway. Is this the same case? Coutts’s banking could be carried on in any other house, and the profits do not. arise out of the hereditament, but in the case of the railway they do. It is scarcely necessary to remark upon your correspondent “Fair- play’s” objection to earnings being taken as the criterion of the value of the railway, because that point has been settled by the Court, and is a long-standing rule of law. “ Fairplay” himself adopts it in his suggestion of the best mode of rating railways, although his manner of applying it is not the just one. He would divide the gross receipts taken along the whole line amongst the parishes in proportion to the length of railway through each parish, whereas the receipts between station aud station should be divided amongst those parishes lying between those stations in proportion to the length of the line through the parishes respectively. I remain. Sir, your most obedient Servant, CHARLES PENFOLD, Surveyor, Croydon, December, 12, 1843. RATING OF RAILWAYS. Sir, —The Court of Queen’s Bench has confirmed its former judgment, affirming the principle that every hereditament is to be rated at such a sum as a tenant will give for it, after deducting cer¬ tain allowances. With respect to a railway, it is to be valued at what the tenant can make of it in his capacity of carrier, and as a receiver of tolls from others who are not occupiers, but carriers only. That sum is ascertained by taking the receipts from the Com¬ pany’s accounts of the previous year and making certain allowances 13 lor working the line, and a sum for a tenant’s subsistence. The only difficulty therefore now is to settle the amount of such allow¬ ances, My object however now is (there being so much uneasiness evinced at the decision of the Court) to examine into the extent of the alleged grievance, in order that the parties interested in the sub¬ ject may see whether the principle laid down does so very much affect the interest of the Companies. I will do this as shortly as possible, first premising that the items of the current expenses have been adopted from accounts which have been published, and the other items, (not to be found in such accounts as expenses in¬ curred) which I have allowed are founded upon the information which the Company themselves have furnished, and which upon examination will turn out to meet every requirement which a Com¬ pany can make. 1 reduce all the items of expenditure to a per centage upon the gross receipts. Now first I will examine what amount should be allowed for expenses, supposing the tenant should he charged upon his receipts as a carrier. No. 1 18‘5 Locomotive power. 2 5 - 8 Maintenance of way. 3 2-8 Police. 4 3'7 Government duty. 5 5 - Sundries. 6 5‘ Tenant’s profits for his own remuneration. 7 3'7 Tenant’s interest upon capital employed in stock. 8 7*2 Tenant’s depreciation of stock. 9 2'4 Depreciation of rails, &c. The first five items are the result of experience ; they have oc¬ curred, and have been found to be ample for those items: the last four arc founded upon information furnished by a Company, and are fully adequate to meet items which are added in ascertaining the rateable value, but which the Companies in fact do not include in their accounts as charges against their property. 14 The amount for the depreciation of stock and rails, is ascertained and a sum laid by as a sinking fund to restore them. Now sup¬ posing the estimate to be made upon the principle of the receipts arising from toll only, it is evident that the expenses will take a different form, and that in taking toll the only items of the above expenses will be: Upon carrying Upon receipts, receipt for toll. No. 2 Maintenance of way.5*8 or 10*19 3 Police. 2*8 or 3*66 5 Sundries . 5* or 11*01 6 Tenant . 3* or 2*75 9 Depreciation of rails.2*4 or 4*31 19 31*92 We have now the expenses in each case, but we must ascertain how much out of every £100 received for carrying and toll together, ought to be considered as toll only. The Act of Parliament fixes the proportions: the maximum fare is to be 3Jd., and the maxi¬ mum toll 2d., or as 4 is to 7. Let then the receipts be founded upon this maximum fare or not, if we ouly consider 4-7ths of the gross receipts as toll, we keep up a proportionate toll, and that was considered just and right at the sessions at Kingston; without the fraction 57 out of 100 would be the toll. Having then, data, let us work it out, and see how great a difference the one principle will make from the other. Take the £100 received as fare first. 54*1 deduct expenses as shown. 45.9 From this the rates and taxes are to be deducted, and as they vary so much in the different parishes the rates are not included in fhe per centage upon the gross receipts, but deducted according to cir¬ cumstances: for the sake of this example, however, of course the rates must be taken at the same per centage in the pound. Take them at four shillings in the pound, 20 per cent, upon the rateable 15 value, the point to be arrived at is what should be the suin to be in¬ serted in the rate book, 20 per cent, upon which would be the dif¬ ference between the 45'9 and that sum. Thus putting it for the rateable value before deducting the rates; a for the rate in the pound, and x the sum to be found, (and the difference between which and it shall be equal to A the rate in the pound on x); the following is a general expression for the value of x ; 100 R - — X, or in words 100-{-a Multiply the rateable value it by 100, and divide the product by 100, added to the rate in the pound or 20 in this case, and the quo¬ tient is the value of it. Thus, R^zdS'O and a =20 45.9 X WO 45900 Here-=-38.22 rateable value. 100+20 120 Therefore the process of valuing the railway, the receipts from toll only being the revenue: Here £100 taken as fare, the toll will be 4-7ths, or— 57 3192 114 513 57 171 181944 Or in round numbers 57 — 18 = 39 rateable value, before rates are taken off. 39 X 100 3,900 Here-=-= 32.50 rateable value 100 + 20 120 So "that the o difFerence between the two principles of valuing would only be as 38* 22 is to 32 * 50 or between 5 and 6 per cent, upon the gross receipts in carrying. 1 am, Sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES PEN FOLD, Surveyor, Croydon. RATING OF RAILWAYS. Sir,—T he remarks you have made upon this subject in your leading article of last week, call upon me, as the correspondent al¬ luded to, to give you some explanation as to the calculation I furnished you. You quote the figures in the Micheldever case, where the toll is made to appear to be only one-fourth of the fare; but is toll taken on the South-Western Railway ? Would the South-Western Com¬ pany let strangers run trains for a fourth part of their gross receipts, leaving three-fourths for the remuneration for carrying? If this were actually to occur, the Company would soon cease to be them¬ selves carriers on their own line. The fact is, that such a proportion of toll to fare could not exist, if the proprietors are to be paid in¬ terest for their capital, as the following calculation will demonstrate. What fairer principle could I adopt (when toll is not taken, and that is the position which I took up) than to reduce the toll in the same proportion as the Company reduce the fare below the maxi¬ mum which they might take ? I am not aware of the circumstances under which the South- Western toll is placed at one-fourth of the fare, unless it is, that find¬ ing no one run trains upon their railway, they fixed it at that low rate, with the view of saving their contributions to the parish, and always supposing the toll would be the basis of the assessment. You say “ the actual rates of charge in use on each line can form the only true basis of calculation.” What are you to do when no toll is taken, as in the case of the Brighton and the Dover Companies? Can you do better than make the toll proportionate to the fare, as I did in the calculation I troubled you with last week? That has been considered just, after a long argument, in which Mr. Alexander was for the Dover Company, and Mr. Chambers for the parish ; and l do not think, therefore, that I am otherwise than justified in using it in all cases when the toll is not taken, and the fare and toll are defined by the Local Act. I think, Sir, I told you that the first five items of expenditure were taken from the Company’s accounts, and if that Company 17 are maintaining - tbeir way for less money than the South-Western, the better for them, I can only say that those five items are cal¬ culated upon the actual expenditure, and that they bear that per centage upon the gross receipts. The item for interest of capital employed in stock was taken at 5 per cent, upon the cost of the stock, which amounted to 3*7 upon the gross receipts. The item for the depreciation of stock was arrived at by taking the time the stock would last, as agreed to by the Company, and ascertaining a sum which laid by annually for that number of years, at compound interest, would re-purchase the stock; and that annual sum amounted to 7*2 per cent, upon the gross receipts. The item for depreciation of rails, &c., was ascertained in like manner, but as that article will last longer than the carriages and engines, it worked out 2*4 per cent upon the gross receipts. With regard to a tenant’s remuneration for his own profit, 5 per cent, has been allowed by me as sufficient, because an allowance has also been made for interest of his capital, and also for securing the restoration of his stock. All these amount to 54*1, which, although you Jiave made it ap¬ pear that that is the total amount of deduction which I have made, is not so, inasmuch as you have overlooked 8 per cent, for rates, (which are included in the 69 per cent, in the Micheldever case), and my allowance therefore would be 62*1, not so very different from the case, seeing that we have each gone our own way to work, with the data taken from a different railway. You name 63 per cent, as the amount deducted for expenses, sup¬ posing toll to be the basis of the receipts, instead of the fare. I can readily suppose that that arises from the toll bearing so different a proportion to the fare than the proportion I have taken, as I cannot understand what other items of expense the Company would be put to in the case of their taking toll than the items of maintenance of way, police, sundries, tenants’ remuneration, and depreciation of rails. They would not have the expense of locomotive power. Government duty; tenants’ interest upon capital; and tenants’ de¬ preciation of stock; those items together forming 33*1 per cent, upon the gross receipts, and as the items which I have allowed are taken from an absolute occurrence, I do not think that my position can be 18 well gainsaid. You make me appear as allowing only 31-92, but you should have added the rates and taxes, 6-50, making together 38-42 per cent. I will now endeavour to show you, that fixing the toll at only one- fourth of the fare cannot work; that the Company could not go on with such a proportion only of the gross receipts. For this purpose I will divide the amount which I had fixed upon for expenses (with¬ out the rates and taxes) into two portions, one of which is incurred in carrying, the other in taking toll; and we will suppose the Company, the toll-taker and a stranger the carrier. -18-5 Locomotive power. 3.7 Government duty. Expenses in 2-5 Sundries, carrying. ^ 2-5 Carriers’ profit. 3‘7 Tenants’ interest upon capital. 7-2 Tenants’ depreciation of stock, 38-1 f 5- 8 Maintenance of way. I 2-8 Police. Expenses in J 3.5 Sundriea . taking toll, j 2 , 5Tenanti 2-4 Depreciation of rails, &c, 160 Making together an allowance of 54-1, without the rates and taxes. Now let us suppose that one-fourth, (or 25 per cent.) of every £100 taken, to be toll, as in the Micheldever case. Toll. Expenses. 25 — 16 = 9 profit. But the rates to be deducted from this amount. Then the rates will reduce it thus— 9 X 100 900 100 - 1 - 20 120 19 This is taking the rates to be 4s, in the £1. The only profit upon toll in this case would be 7| per cent, upon the gross receipts. Now see what the carrier’jeanis:— Expenses Toll 100—38-1+25=36-9, and no rates to pay, because he is not the occupier, when at the same time he has been’ allowed remuneration as carrier, interest upon capital, and depreciation of stock in the 38*1. The two parties together in this view of the case, earn 44'4 per cent.; but it is manifest that the proprietors could not go on under such an arrange¬ ment, the carrier taking almost all the profit, and leaving little or no rent for the railway. This statement is sufficient to show that a much greater toll must be paid by the carrier than one-fourth of the gross receipts, and from what follows, it will, I think, appear that the proportions fixed by some Acts are the right proportions, viz., 4-7ths for the use of the railway, and 3-7ths for the carriers’ expenses and sub¬ sistence. Toll Expenses. Thus 4-7ths or 57—16=41 profit exclusive of rates. Then the rates would reduce that amount thus— 41 X 100 4100 -—--34-16 100 + 20 120 Thus the profit upon toll would be equal to 34-16 of the gross receipts. The carriers’ account would stand thus— Expenses. Toll. 100-38-1+57=4-9 The two parties disconnected, can earn 39-06 per cent, upon gross receipts. United they would clear 38-22; thus 100—54-1=45-9 less the rates. 45-9X100 45900 -=-=38-22 100 + 20 120 Now with respect to the allowance 1 have made upon taking toll, you, Sir, state that I have only allowed 31-92; whereas in the 20 Micheldever case 63 per cent, was allowed. I am glad yon pointed out this, because it is confirmatory of the allowance upon the gross receipts being the same, or nearly so in both cases. The 63 percent, is upon “one-fourth” of the gross receipts; the 31-92 (to which you should have added the rates) is upon 4-7ths of the gross receipts, therefore the deduction made upoataking toll in that case was 15-75 upon the gross receipts, and I have in this statement allowed 16 per cent, upon the gross receipts. You say, “It would involve a tedious and unnecessary array of figures to show the precise de¬ gree in which each of the items in the statement we have alluded to is at fault. One will suffice: take the head of maintenance of way, which he reckons at 5-8 on the gross receipts, or 10-19 on the tolls, By actual reference to the Report of the South-Western Company for December. 1843, we find the item amounting to 8"5 nearly on the receipts, or 34- on the toll, in the proportion it actually existed in the parish of Micheldever.” This item was taken from the Company’s accounts to which 1 al¬ lude, and seems to be a fair average upon comparing the expendi¬ ture of other Companies upon this item. For example, I find that item to be as follows in the undermen¬ tioned Companies’ accounts;— Great Western . 6- „ London and Birmingham. 5" „ Northern and Eastern .. 4- „ Eastern Counties. 6-25 Manchester and Leeds. 6. „ North Midland. 6-75 London and Brighton ... 4- 80 I think, therefore, under these circumstances, you hardly do me justice in condemning my statement upon such an item, particularly when I set out by stating that it was notan estimate of my own, but was founded upon what had occurred. Upon reference to the accounts of the above Companies. 1 find their per centage of expenditure upon their gross receipts to be— 21 Great Western . 33* 40 Birmingham. 32* 60 Northern and Eastern. 52' 10 Eastern Counties. 47" 75 Manchester and Leeds. 41*61 North Midland. 35*85 Brighton. 47* 50 The allowance, therefore, which I have made, of 62 per cent, cannot in fairness be objected to, Some regulation ought to be made with respect to the amount of toll railway Companies should charge; because, as the law at present stands, they have the power of preventing any one from competing with them, by claiming the maximum toll, which, as you have observed, may amount to more than the fare which they them¬ selves can carry the public for. The proportion of maximum toll to fare should be fixed, and the Company be required to lower the toll to be taken of strangers, in proportion as they may have lowered their fare. In conclusion, I beg to observe, that if I have shown that the pro¬ portion of 1 to 4 for tolls, is impracticable and that 4 to 7 is reason¬ able and proper* and if I have rightly apportioned the different items of expense to carrying and toll taking, and those items have occurred and are consistent with experience, the result must be as I stated in my last letter; that there would not be a greater difference in the amount of an assessment of 5 or 6 per cent, whether it were upon the tolls only, or upon tolls combiued with carrying. I remain. Sir, yours, &c. CHARLES PENFOLD, Surveyor, Croydon, RATING OF RAILWAYS. Sir, —You still seem to feel that the assessment upon the property of Railway Companies is made upon their profit in trade, and not * See the first railway that occurs and is nearest to me, the Brighton. The fare between Creydon and London is 2s. 3d. for first-class passengers, and the tolls paid to the Croydon and Greenwich Companies are equal to Is. 4d. or 59 per cent.; reckoning the first and second classes together the toll would amount to 66 per cent. 22 upon the value of realty only, I think the more this subject is consi¬ dered, the sooner that misconception will be dispelled, for it really is an error to say that the profits upon carrying are rated. This question is of great importance, and sooner or later must be brought to a point, and settled upon a proper basis. It is desirable, then, to look the question fairly in the face,^ and if injustice is being committed, to point it out, and convince the parishes of their error. It is threatened that the Companies will apply to Parliament to be relieved from being assessed towards the relief of the poor upon the same principle which is adopted in rating other property ; but this must appear to be an idle threat, for a moment’s consideration will convince any one that Parliament cannot make one law for one party and another law for another. If that were done—if one could for a moment suppose the legislature could by possibility do so under some misapprehension of the grievance, and reverse the deci¬ sion of the Judges touching the principle which they have laid down as the true law of rating, founded as it is upon the statute which Parliament itselfhas enacted—supposing that to occur, what would immediately follow such a proceeding ? Why, that the landed in¬ terest would at once feel that they ought to be relieved also; be¬ cause the mode of ascertaining the value of a farm is founded upon the same principle as that which has hitherto been pursued by those who have valued railway property for the purpose of an assessment. What is the difference between the two ? Complaint has been made that hitherto the profits of the Company upon their carrying have been assessed; as well may you say that the profits of the farmer have been assessed when the rent of his land has been valued for the purpose of the poorrate. The truth is, that in neither case are the tenant’s profits assessed, but only the rent aris¬ ing out of the property, the annual value of the realty in both in¬ stances. For what is the mode of proceeding in valuing each de¬ scription of property, the farm and the railway ? Why, in valuing the land used for agricultural purposes, the valuer will look at the nature of the land, and decide accordingly what sort of cropping will suit it, and then taking the probable expenditure upon each course and allowing a tenant a sum for profits and subsistence, or, in other words, such a proportion of the gross receipts for his remuneration, 23 and such a per centage for the interest of the money employed as a tenant is usually content with, and then having ascertained the probable amount of the produce of the land so created by the use of horses, carts, and carriages, and man’s skill and industry, he deducts them from the amount, and the remainder is the rent or value of the realty. Can it be said that you are assessing a tenant’s profits when it forms one of the items of deduction ? and may you not as well say so, as that you are assessing a tenant’s profit upon a railway when that item also forms one of the deductions? Are not the two properties similarly situated, are they not both obliged to be cultivated, used, before any rent can arise ? Would a hundred acres of arable land produce a rent of 40s. an acre, unless cultivated by horses, carts and carriages, and the business of a farmer carried on ? But is com¬ plaint made that a tenant’s profits are assessed when a farm is rated to the poor ? the one would be as just as the other. If then in this case, in order to ascertain the rateable value of land used for the production of corn in which machines are used and man’s skill and industry, and the profits of the farmer are not considered to be assessed , how can it be saidjthat in rating land used for the purpose of creating an income by laying rails upon it, and using carriages, &c., you are rating tenant’s profits, when the very same course is pursued in arriving at its net produce, or what a tenant will give for the use of it, as was adopted in ascertaining the rent of the farm ? I will repeat what I have said before, that so long as you include in your calculation of the expense of carrying upon a railway, such a sum for a tenant’s profit as he would be content with were he to rent the railway, the remainder of the gross receipts is the rent or toll which he would pay; and if from this amount you make proper deductions to cover the expense of taking toll in¬ cluding such allowance for profit as a tenant would be satisfied with, the remainder is the assessable value, and proves in truth and in fact that you are only after all has been said, rating the tolls, or the fair produce of the realty. Thus—- 24 Locomotive power . 18*5 Government duty. 3*7 Sundries. 2*5 Carrier’s profit. 3* Tenant’s interest upon capital employed .. 3.7 Tenant’s depreciation of stock. 7*2 Amount of the expenses of carrying' and tenant’s profit 38'6 Maintenance of way. 5'8 Police. 2-8 Sundries. 2'5 Tenant’s profits. 2* Depreciation of rails . 2*4 Expenses in taking toil and tenant’s profits . 15 - 5 54‘1 Rateable value without the rates. 45'9 100 * If the Company remains the occupier and carrier also, the rate¬ able value would be 45-9 without the rates; and taking the rates at 4s. in the pound it would reduce it to 38'25. If they take toll only the amount of toll will be— Carrying Gross. Expenses. Toll. 100 — 38-6 = 61-4 Toll. Expenses. Rateable. Then . 61*4 — 15*5 = 45-9 Then . 45'9 — 4s. in the pound = 38*25 So that the toll or rent will always be 100, less the carrier's expenses, in which expenses the profits of the carrier are included; and then deducting from this amount the expenses of toll taking, and which include the tenant’s profits we have the rateable value; and then taking off the rates, whatever they may be, we have the amount to be inserted in the rate book. The toll only therefore, is rated, and not the profits upon carrying. 25 Supposing the toll only one-fourth of the fare, and the carrier’s expenses including his profits to be 3S'6, the two together would be 25-f38-G=fi3-6, leaving 36‘4 over and above what the Company and the carriers require. In such a case this excessive profit upon carrying wovdd induce other carriers to start in the trade, until the fare was reduced to 63-6, The toll remaining the same, the propor¬ tion of one-fourth toll would no longer exist; the toll then would be as 25 to f>3'6 or 39-3 per cent, of the fare ; so that in fact 25 per cent, cannot be fixed upon as the toll, but that sum will be the toll which is left after paying the carrier’s expenses and profits, the amount varying according to circumstances, and rendering it neces¬ sary for the Directors to watch carefully the proper limit at which to fix the fare, and which they have in their power to govern by the amount of toll they can lay on, the carrier’s expenses and profits being ascertained. If it be too high or too low, the Company’s receipts will suffer, and the responsibility rests with them. It is their estate, and the rent or tolls which it will produce depends upon the policy they adopt, the carrier being merely the medium of creating a prod uce from the realty, he being paid such a sum for his services as a tenant is usually content with. Iam, Sir, yours, &c., CHARLES PENFOLD. Croydon, July. RATING OF RAILWAYS. Sir, —In my last letter upon this subject, I stated that “that sum will be the toll which is left after paying the carrier’s expenses and profits:” I have since thought that it may be argued that the Company have the power first to fix the toll, and that therefore the amount of toll does not depend upon the fare, and will not be “such a sum as will be left after paying the carrier’s expenses and profits” Taking that to be so, what would be the effect? The carrier would add 38 - (i per cent., the amount assumed to be his expenses and profits, to the toll, and that would be the fare. Showing not only that the Company have the power to fix the fares, 26 (as well when strangers are the carriers as themselves) but that the responsibility rests with them to fix the best paying amount of toll. The result would be the same amount of rating as I have before stated, viz., from the fare deduct the carrier’s expenses and profits and you have the toll; and from the toll deduct the expense of taking toll, including a tenant’s profit, and the remainder is the rateable value. You say that Lord Denman assumes “the deductions exhaust whatever is referable to trade, if they do, the rate is fair,” and you remark “that this is a little inconsistent with preceding passages, and shows that trade profits are included for the purpose of exhaus¬ tion ; then do they exhaust ? ” They exhaust what Lord Denman meant them to exhaust (or re¬ duce) the amount of the assessable value in order that the profits in trade should not be rated, and the real value of the realty in its new form, should be the subject matter of the rate, accompanied by occupation. Then you say “the sum or rent a tenant would give would be determined, increased or diminished, by whether he took or could have the Company’s connection or not as a right, and whether he could exclude a competing conveyance or not. Does not all this show that you are; paying in the supposed rent in question for something more than the mere rental or profit of the land for trade and connection, or custom in addition? ” Now what can be demised ? It is clear the railway can be demised, the fee be¬ ing in the Company, and which is proved by the fact of several rail¬ ways being at this time held on lease, the tenants taking them with all their liabilities, i e. of letting strangers use them upon paying toll. The lolls so to be taken can be demised under the Act of Parliament. A tenant therefore will give a rent for the right of using the railway himself without paying toll and for the right of taking toll of stran¬ gers. In this case then you rate the tenant for a rent he will give, and which rent is founded upon toll and nothing else, for before renting the railway he will enter into a calculation founded partly upon what have been the receipts and disbursements of the previous year and partly upon the prospective appearance of what it is likely to produce. He finds upon reference to what oc¬ curred last year, that he must be allowed a deduction from the 27 gross receipts 38-6 per cent, for his expenses as carrier, in which sum there is an allowance of 3 per cent, upon the gross receipts for his own profit, 37 per cent, upon the gross receipts for the interest of his money employed in stock, and 7*2 per cent, on the gross re¬ ceipts for the depreciation of his stock. Then as he is tenant, he will have to keep up the way, not only for his own traffic, but for the traffic created by any strangers: and he must be allowed 15-5 per cent, upon the gross receipts for taking toll, whether the toll arise from his own carrying or from the trains of strangers, and that in¬ cludes maintenance of way, police, sundries, his own profit and the depreciation of the rails, &c. These together make 54'1, and he can therefore afford to pay to the landlord 45*9 per cent, of the gross receipts, less the rates and taxes, and as we in this case set them at four shillings in the pound, the 45'9 will be reduced to 38'25. A clear rent of 38-25 then a tenant will give for the use of the railway himself, and for the right of taking toll of others. That is to say, if strangers carry as well as a tenant, the toll imposed by him will be 100-38.6, or 61.4, of which 61-4 received of strangers, he will re¬ tain for himself 15’5, and the rates and taxes which will leave 38.25 for the landlord as the produce of the realty. Here, then, if the tlenant be carrier and toll-taker also, he pays the Company 38*25, and gets his profit upon both carrying and toll taking; if others carry as well as himself he loses part of the carrier’s profit, but receives the profit upon the toll the other pays, the whole toll passing through the tenant’s hands, and paid over to the landlord. If he have not the profit upon all the carrying he has not the trouble of all; where then is the dependency upon the Com¬ pany’s connection? Then you say, can the traffic receipts be considered as'realty, or appurtenant to it ? Those receipts are produced upon the realty, and without it could not be produced; and the cost of the production of that part of the receipts which may be said not to be inherent, are exhausted before you determine the value of the realty. You say that even the application of locomotive and other personal property to the land does not, as in the case of agricultural improve¬ ments, produce the realty profits; a third power has to be intro¬ duced, viz,, passengers or goods for carriage; like profit in a ship or 28 canal; and this assessment therefore is a rate not on the natural pro¬ duction of the soil, as in the case of arable laud, but on the artificial production (if it is produce^ at all) with the adjunct of independent personal property on locomotion, on freight. Is a house placed upon the soil a natural production ? and yet the rate upon the land on which it stands is increased by the value of this artificial production. In the case of agriculture, is wheat the natural production of the land? Would it appear without being first sown upon the land, and unless the ground were first cultivated and prepared for its re¬ ception by the use of implements and man’s industry and contriv¬ ance, and by the artificial assistance of manures? &c., &c. Would you not, in lieu of the wheat, have abundance of natural, but unpro¬ fitable produce— weeds? And may not the wheat be called the third power introduced, as you denominate the passengers and goods the third power in the case of the railway ? You cite that Lord Denman says—“The landlord underletting a room to a lodger having a profitable trade would not pay larger poor-rates unless he took increased rentto which you remark, “Would he take more or less rent on account of a larger or a smaller profit by his tenant or his trade and personality ? ” To which it may be answered, that if the lodger’s trade depended upon the house, its locality or peculiar convenience or privileges the greater the profit arising from those causes the greater the rent he would pay; and if his trade did not arise out of the heredita¬ ments or the occupation of it, the rent would then not be affected. In conclusion I beg to repeat, that if the gross receipts be ex¬ hausted (ov reduced) by the amount of the carrier’s expenses and, profits, you have the toll—and if the toll be exhausted by the amount of the cost of maintaining the road which earns the toll, including the tenant’s subsistence, you have the rateable value, less the rates and taxes whatever they may be; and having done so, it is quite out of the question any longer to contend that the pro¬ fits in trade are rated. I remain. Sir, yours, &c. CHARLES PENFOLD, Surveyor, Croydon. Sllmtl Sen Printers, Ashford. APPENDIX. The following was the leading Article in the Times Newspaper of the lit of November last, to which is added Mr. C. Pentold’s Reply, in a Letter to the Editor, who regretted he could not publish it, owing to the crowded state of that Paper. A Corporation, it lias lieen said of old, lias no soul. People now-a-days seem to have discovered, further, that it has sometimes plenty of body. A Public Company may be defined, according- to modern practice, as a thing made to he plundered. Its whole spoils, whatever they are, large or small, are all available booty. “Jacet ingens litore truneusf it has no soul of its own to defend it; and every one therefore may cut away, and does cut away, without compunction or check, just as far as his own conscience tells him he may lawfully go, or sometimes a little farther. The Company’s own servants, the men of its own household, of course come first. They are its most formidable foes. The pay is pro¬ verbial. No one would serve a Company at all unless his own very liberal salary were made the very first charge upon its outgoings—• prior, long prior, to the slightest hint of any expenditure towards the public and avowed designs of the undertaking, and much more to any the faintest or most distant murmur of profits or dividends. If a Company can do nothing else, it can support its own esta¬ blishment. Its bills and wages are paid, and paid well; it drives no bargains: everybody serves it upon everybody’s own terms. This is the most favourable aspect of a Company's affairs. It assumes that there is no peculation, nothing more than the ordinary run of business. The establishment comes first, then the public, and lastly the Government. There is no mercy. The public ex¬ pects to he served cheap, though the establishment expects to be paid dear; and the Government, last of all, thinks, and thinks rightly, that where a concern is in the hands of a body “ aggregate APPENDIX. of many,” the same or heavier taxes may he laid on with less lacking', and drawn with less screwing and grumbling, than where they are all paid, though upon the same amount of property, by one owner. One would have thought this enough, in all conscience, to have allowed in the w T ay of drawback upon public commercial enterprise. Yet there is a class of Public Companies—a class which, upon every principle of public policy, and of social economy, deserves, not protection indeed, for this they need not, hut at any rate the fairest possible play—we mean the Bailway Companies— which, as most of our readers must be by this time aware, has, besides the formidable foes already enumerated, another, and that a very hungry, enemy to contend with. That enemy is, of all things in the world to saddle upon a locomotive train of 60 miles an hour, the local rate for the relief of the poor. We have now before us a pamphlet, entitled Railway and Land Taxation, in which the statistics of this impost upon Railway traffic are very fully set out. We recommend its facts to the attention of all impartial minds. How it ever came to be law, as it now appears to he, and that undoubtedly, that Railway Companies should be liable to he as¬ sessed to the poor-rate, not, as is the case with all other holders of landed property, upon the fan value to let of the lands possessed by them, but upon the whole profits of their trade, we certainly are at a loss to conceive. The Assessment Act of 1836, which governs this question, directs the rate to be made upon “the net annual value of the hereditaments rated, i. e., of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants’ rates and taxesand as if to make assurance doubly sure, it is further enacted, by the 3rd and 4th Victoria, c. 89, that no inhabitant shall be taxed to the poor-rate “in respect of Ms ability derived from the profits of stock in trade, or other property.” A whole chain of cases have been decided upon this principle; and until the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench in the case of the South Western Railway Company in 1842, the distinction between profits of trade and the naked value of the pre- APPENDIX. 3 mises where such trade was carried on, the latter of which, only formed tlie basis of assessment, was uniformly upheld and acted upon. The Court of Queen’s Bench, however, decided that in the case of Railways no such distinction should he made. Lord Den¬ man refused to admit as the ground of rating even the modified scale of tolls fixed by the Railway Act as payable generally by all carriers using the R l j Yet surely this, if any, should seem to have been the very fairest possible basis of an estimate of the value “ at which the Railway might be expected to let” (even as a Railway) “ from year to year.” But Lord Denman insisted upon rating the Company on their entire receipts. We do confess our¬ selves wholly at a loss to see how or on what possible principle this exception to the general rule can be supported or defended. Neither law nor justice does it appear to us. If there ought to have been any doubt, it should seem to have been rather between an assessment upon the value of the land to let for cultivation, and its value to let as a Railway at the modified tolls specified by the Act. And they are neither few nor bad reasons which might be urged in favour even of the former and lesser basis of rating. But when, setting aside the law, we come to the principle of Railway rating, it certainly does seem not a little extraordinary to call upon undertakings of this sort to pay upon the enormous scale which is fixed by the present law to the relief of the different parishes through which they may pass. A manufactory or a brewery pays according to the value of the premises occupied in the manufacture, increased as that value is by the fact of a lucrative business being carried on it. But who ever heard of a millowner or brewer being rated upon the whole profits of his trade? What distinguishes a Railway from these cases ? If there is any distinc¬ tion at all, it is indeed in favour of the Railway; for whereas the profits of the factory or brewery are local, and are made and re¬ ceived in the place whose poor they would be assessed to support, those of the Railway are the very reverse, and are received for the most part in London, or York, or Liverpool, or some other large town, miles from the country parish that partakes of them in the shape of rate, and they are paid to persons who, for the most part, 4 APPENDIX. have no connexion with that parish whatever. The principle of bcality, so essential to a poor-rate, is directly reversed. "We are not arguing that Railway lands should he exempt from the common burdens to which all other lands are subject. We do not think that large establishments of this sort are u, any way entitled to hold themselves apart from the country in which their several settlements and colonies—for they are often almost colonies —are respectively located. Assess them to the poor-rate by all means, but assess them fairly. They are less pauperizing, they employ more people, and employ them well, than any other known establishment, factory, or concern whatever. They are entitled, therefore, at least to fair play. They turn loose no starving labourers in the winter’s want of employment; they give no 5s. and 6s. a week wages to have the deficiency supplied by the parish. They are therefore pre-eminently entitled to have fair play at the hands of those who do practise these questionable doings. Yet what do our readers suppose is the real amount of extortion—we can call it no less—to which these bodies are subjected ? We quote from the pamphlet to which we have already referred. Pour shil¬ lings per acre per annum is the estimated average amount of the poor, highway, county, and church-rates, at an average rental and net rateable value of 15 s. to 20s. per acre (independent of other taxes), on the land in cultivation throughout England. By an analysis of the receipts and expenditure of the 27 principal English Railways, compared with their length and acreage, it appears that they are assessed to the above four rates to the average tune of no less than—not 4s., but—182s. (91. 2s.) per acre, being about 45 times the average amount at which the same land would have been assessed, if assessed fairly, upon the same principle as all other land is assessed, and being assessed on a valuation at least 48 times greater than the amount originally paid for the fee simple of the sameland. Now, the poor-rate is said to be, not a land-tax, but a personal charge—a “ personal charge in respect of land.” The words are Lord Mansfield’s. On what possible principle of personal obli¬ gation, then, can the non-resident shareholders of a railway be APPENDIX. held bound to make tliis enormous contribution in support of poor whom they have never seen or heard of, and with whom they have no more conceivable connexion than is contained in the fact that these poor all live within 10 miles or less of a line of road which they use for the transit of their trains ? The road is the only bond of connexion. In respect of that road, and upon the fair value of that road, let the charge be made. But the goods, carriages, and engines passing along the line certainly appear to have as little connexion with the poor of the parishes through which they pass, as they have with the inhabitants of Timbuctoo. If the prosperity of these undertakings is conceived in any way to be bound up with that of the country at large, we cannot but think that them taxation in this respect must be put sooner or later upon a more equitable footing. RATING OF RAILWAYS. To the Editor of the Times. Sir, —Having read your leading article upon this subject, I am induced to offer some observations relative to the various points upon which you have remarked, feeling assured that you only desire, as well as myself, to set the question in its true light before the public. I think I may pass by your general observations ad misericordiam, seeing that even if they were just they have nothing to do with the fact of the Law of Rating, the main question to treat of being, whether Railway property is literally and truly rated upon a different principle from all other property liable by law to be rated towards the support of the poor. You do not of course seriously mean that any argument is to be looked for in your observations with respect to “ the enemy to the Railway saddling upon the locomotive train of sixty miles an hour, the local rate for the relief of the poor.” If you are serious, you induce the public to believe that the locomotive is rated instead of the land converted into a Railway, that the rate is a personal rate, and should only be paid by those who are located on the spot; you do not mean to convey this impression. I must quote your own words which come next in order for me to remark upon. “How it ever came to be law, as it now appears to be, and that undoubtedly, that Railway Companies should be liable to be assessed to the poor-rate, not, as is the case with all other holders of landed property, upon the fair value to let of the lands possessed by them, but upon the whole profits of their trade, we certainly are at a loss to conceive.” Sir, you are evidently under the same misconception of the truth as many others, who have not gone through the subject in its details, or you would not, in the first place, say that it has been laid down as law that Railway Companies are liable to be rated for their profits in trade. It has APPENDIX. teen laid down as law, that Kailway Companies are to be assessed at that amount wbicli a tenant may reasonably be expected to give: and in ascertaining- that amount, all tbe expenses incurred in pro¬ ducing tbe gross receipts are to exliaust tbe rateable amount, including the tenant’s profits; and Lord Denman said “tbe de¬ ductions exhaust whatever is referable to trade ; if they do, the rate is fair” —tbe context being, that if they do not,' tbe rate is not fair, and sucb as be meant to be law. Tbe next point in your remarks is this—you say “that until tbe decision of tbe Court of Queen’s Bench in tbe case of tbe South Western Railway in 1S42, the distinction between profits in trade, and tbe naked value of tbe premises where sucb trade was carried on, tbe latter of which only formed tbe basis of tbe assessment, was uniformly held and acted upon. The Court of Queen’s Bench however decided that in tbe case of Railways, sucb distinction should be made. Lord Denman refused to admit as tbe ground of rating even the modified scale of tolls pixed by the railway act, as payable generally by all carriers using the Railway: yet surely this, if any, should seem to have been tbe very fairest possible basis of an estimate of tbe annual value at which tbe Railway might be expected to let (even as a Railway) from year to year.” Surely, Sb-, Lord Denman took tbe most legitimate and com¬ prehensive course in laying down tbe rule of law to be tbe same as it is applied to all other property, without attempting to describe from whence tbe source of value was to arise: be surely was right in saying, as be will bold in any other case, that that amount is tbe rateable value which a tenant will give, making him tbe statutable deductions. Why, if tbe toll fixed by the Railway Act were to be tbe basis of rating, tbe companies would in many cases be rated at more than then- gross receipts!—for instance, tbe South Eastern Company charge as fare upon tbe average (which of course includes tbe toll) 1-jfl!. per mile per passenger, and they would be rated at 2d. that being tbe amount of toll fixed by tbe Act. In practice how¬ ever, Railways are assessed (at any rate by myself) upon that which you call tbe very fairest basis, Viz., the toll: not tbe toll fixed by the Act however, for that, as I have shown, would be ruinous and unfair to tbe Companies, but upon that amount of toll which they absolutely and in fact take. This is arrived at, too, without shutting out Lord Denman’s principle, but by following it, and mirociucing in tbe calculation tbe receipts and expenses referable to APPENDIX. trade (and as you would do in fixing- the rent of a farm) and then exhausting- the rateable amount by those expenses relating to trade and the tenant’s profits. I cannot see how it can be otherwise done as I have shown, for the gross receipts being in the shape of fare, the proportion of toll which it includes cannot be ascertained without pursuing such a course: and at the same time that you do so, you are making the toll, and the toll only, the basis of the rate: and if the toll is made the basis of the rate, are you assessing any thing more than “the naked value of the premises?” To quote from a letter of my own in the Railway Times of the 21st of September last, “ if the gross receipts be exhausted (or reduced) by the amount of the carrier’s expenses and profits, you have the toll: and if the toll be exhausted by the amount of the cost of main¬ taining, the road which earns the toll, including the tenant’s subsistence, you have the rateable value less the rates and taxes whatever they may be: and having done so, it is quite out of the question any longer to contend that the profits in trade are rated.” The difference then between the Companies and the parishes is this. The Companies wish to make it appear that almost all the receipts beyond the expenses are the profits of the carrier, and do not arise out of the realty: whereas the parishes say that all that is left, after paying every description of expense relating to the trading department and a tenant’s profit, is the value of the Railway, and is the rent a tenant wall and can give : and were it not so, no interest could be paid for the money expended in making the Railway—for if they themselves do not carry and pay themselves toll or rent out of the fare, they must take that rent of others to pay the proprietors’ interest for the capital expended; carrying by the Company being by no means a necessary consequence of their having made the Railway. To put this more forcibly and clearly: suppose the Company to become merely toll-takers and not earners, leaving the trade to be carried on by strangers—would they not naturally enough say, and in saying so be practically right: Now let us see; having fixed that amount of fare which we found from experience to be the best, when we ourselves were the only carriers on the line, let us analyse it, and by inspection of our own accounts ascertain what the carrying expenses were—because, if we allow the stranger carrier the same amount as the carrying department cost us, and add a sum which a tenant ought reasonably to expect for his own trouble and profit, PPENDIX. 9 tlie remainder must be ours to pay tlie expense of maintaining tire way, and paying- the proprietors’ interest for their money laid out in the construction of the Railway. Then taking 100 to re¬ present the fare, we find the cost of The locomotive power was - - 18-5 Government duty - 3-7 Sundries - - 2-5 Tenant’s interest upon capital em¬ ployed in stock - } 3-7 Tenant’s depreciation of stock - 7-2 35-6 Add tenant’s profits ' 3 38-6 This amount deducted from the 100, leaves 61-4 as the amount of toll the carrier could pay. But the Railway is not rated at this sum, there are other expenses and profits to he allowed the toll- taker for maintaining the way and profit, they are as follows:—■ Maintenance of way - - - 5-8 Police.2-8 Sundries.2-5 Depreciation of rails, &c. - - 2-4 13-5 Add tenant’s profits 2 15-5 This deducted would leave 54-1 as the rateable value, but as the rates and taxes must also be allowed, and if these be taken at 4s. in the pound, the rateable value would then stand at 38-25. You observe that “ a manufactory or a brewery pays according to the value of the premises occupied in the manufacture, increased as that value is by the fact of a lucrative trade being carried on in it; but who ever heard of a mill-owner being rated upon the whole profits of his trade? What distinguishes a Rahway from these cases?” I take it the same rule of law which Lord Denman has laid down in the Railway cases will be made to apply to all here¬ ditaments, and that if a larger rent can be realized than the naked building would produce, owing to circumstances attached to the 10 APPENDIX. realty, and arising out of it, it would be rateable at wbat a tenant would give. I conceive tliat any machinery or plant fixed to a manufactory or brewery, and for which a rent can he obtained, is rateable upon tbe principle wbicb has been laid down in the Kail¬ way cases; hut in ascertaining 1 the amount of Rent, you must be careful that it is owing- to, and arising- out of the hereditament, and not dependent upon foreign circumstances, such as in the case of the brewery, where the tenant being- possessor of many public houses, creates custom, and consequently more profit in proportion; in such a case the profits are owing to circumstances not inherent in the hereditament, and the value therefore must not be attributed to it. In the one case the profits depend upon fortuitous circum¬ stances, in the other (the case of the Railway) they arise immediately out of the realty. Then it is asked by some persons, if they have a patent which produces them a large income, would you rate them in respect of that patent? To which it may be answered, that if the patent be a personalty, not attached or fixed to the land, it would not be rate¬ able, but if the profit arose from a patent fixed to the land, and was of such a nature as that the income arose from the land so privileged, and was lettable, it would be rated at what a tenant would give. The licence (or patent) to a public-house increases the value of that house, the licence being attached to it, the house itself being licensed, hut you do not in that case rate the profits in trade, but the improved rent ,- the publican feeling-, that, after he has provided for his own subsistence, he can afford to give the im¬ proved rent. Will not the Atmospheric Railway, which enjoys a patent, be rated in the same manner and upon the same principle, as the locomotive Railways ? will the patent, which in this case is attached to, and dependent upon the land, relieve the Railway from the assessment ? Then it is said to be an inquisitorial proceeding tomake the Railway Companies exhibit their accounts, and to deduce the value of the Railway from such documents. In that respect it need only be remarked that the Companies publish them themselves. “ But who ever heard of a warehouse being valued by going- into the merchant’s profit and loss ?” In this case the value of the warehouse is not connected with the profits in trade, they do not arise out of the warehouse, they probably could be created in any other building, the profits depending in this case upon the person, and do not arise out of the hereditament. Again it is asked, would you continue to rate the Railway, supposing no APPENDIX. 11 profit could be made ? to which it is answered, no, not if the non¬ production of profit arose from the inefficiency of the Railway, if it were so placed that it could produce no custom; not if it were in¬ trinsically a had concern: hut, if the non-production of profit arose from had management, and it was evident that it arose from that cause, then it would he rated according- to the valuation of the party intrusted with the assessment. Take the case of land; it is not because one man does not make any profit out of his holding, that that land is not to he rated, it being notorious that if properly managed it is worth the sum at which it is assessed. ““What do our readers suppose is the real amount of extortion, we can call it no less, to which these bodies are subjected; we quote from the pamphlet to which we have already referred. Four shillings per acre per annum is the estimated average amount of the poor, highway, county, and church-rates, at an average rental and net rateable value of 15s. to 20 s. per acre (independent of other taxes) on the land in cultivation through England: by an analysis of the receipts and expenditure of the 27 principal Rail¬ ways compared with their length and acreage, it appears that they are assessed to the above four rates to the average tune of no less than—not 4s., but—182s. per acre, being about 45 times the average amount at which the same land would have been assessed, if assessed fairly upon the same principle which all other land is assessed, and being assessed on a valuation at least 48 times greater than the amount originally paid for the fee simple of the same land.” I cannot believe you to have been serious in drawing the com¬ parison, between the rateable value of an acre of land in cultivation, and when converted into a Railway ? you surely do not gravely mean to say, that the land is to be rated no higher than before, although an immense sum of money has been laid out upon it, and which land so converted brings an immense rental! If so, all the various acres in and about our large towns, which are being from day to day covered with valuable houses, must remain assessed at the same amount as before the houses were built, and the rent created: but if you do not mean to let the land, so improved, remain rated at the same amount, what purpose does it answer to show how much this assessment is increased, unless you can show the amount of the assessment ought not to be so increased. Ought I to complain that the acre which three years ago was rated at 30s. is now rated a hundred times as much, I being at the same time in the receipt of an hundred times as much rental; I fear I 12 APPENDIX. should not get relief from the circumstance of my merely pointing out the fact of the increase; something more, I apprehend, would be required of me, before I should be absolved from the higher assessment; I am inclined to think, Sir, that you are in this dilemma. You do not prove injustice done. “ Now the poor-rate is said to be not a land-tax, but a personal charge, a personal charge in respect of land.” I cannot understand how a charge can be said to be personal (as such) which is laid upon the realty; of course the land cannot be personified, and yield up payment of itself: it must be through the medium of the person; and I should conceive a personal charge to mean a tax upon the person (as a poll-tax) independent of the land. But, however, be that as it may, if the fact of all the proprietors not being resident were to be ground of excuse from poor-rate, half the property in the country would be exempt; and as to residence on the property being necessary to render xt liable to be assessed, the rale, according to my conception, ought rather to be the other way, viz., that those who have property and do not reside upon it, but draw their income from the land and spend it far away, should be assessed higher still. I trust to your known liberality in the conduct of your most useful and much read Journal, to insert the result of my thoughts upon this subject; and should they appeal' to you to be founded in error, you would do me and the public much sendee by pointing out the particulars in which I may bave gone astray. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, Croydon, Chas. Penfold, Surveyor. Nov. 8, 1844. LondonPrinted by Shaw and Sons, 137 & 138, Fetter Lane. „ .