33t.z 
 A/I7r 
 
 '^A^ ST. KDSF
 
 ilSCH *^<^ v^^
 
 RAILWAY AND LAND TAXATION, 
 
 'illil 
 
 '''l'"| SHEWING THE 
 
 } 
 
 ! 
 
 ijilii ORIGIN, PROGRESS, LAW, OPERATION, AND STATISTICS. 
 
 OF THE 
 
 iiiiii 
 
 POOR AND OTHER RATES, 
 
 AND THEIR 
 
 INJUSTICE AND IMPOLICY 
 
 WITH REFERENCE TO 
 
 RAILWAYS 
 
 iTH A DIGEST OF ALL THE LEGAL DECISIONS, and a glance at the 
 
 LOCAL RATES AND GENERAL TAXATION OF RAILWAYS AND LAND. 
 
 zCharles I3'lrne5 /Vaskj 
 
 15Y THE AUTHOR OF " INDIAN LETTEKS," " LEGAL AND GENEALOGICAL EESEAECHES,' 
 "CONTBIBUTIONS TO DAILY AND OTHER LITEEATUBE," &c. &c. 
 
 Fiat Justitia mat Caelum. 
 
 SonDon : 
 
 BROWN'S LIBRARY, 10, DUKE STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE 
 SHAW AND SONS, 136 & 137, FETTER LANE, LONDON. 
 
 1844.
 
 LONDON : 
 PRINTED BY J. T. NORRIS, 13" & 138, ALDERSGATE STREET. 
 
 
 \
 
 ^ 
 
 f) 
 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 J 
 
 TO 
 
 GHAELES STEVEI^S, ESa. 
 
 ri 
 
 OF 
 
 ^ Z OLD JEWRY, LONDON, 
 
 The strenuous upholder of Railway Interests — whose Firm has for 
 upwards of half a century occupied the highest station in the 
 leading City of the World as Professional Advisers to numerous 
 PubHc Companies, Mercantile and other Establishments; and whose 
 reputation and engagements have extended to China, the East and 
 West Indies, and all quarters of the Commercial World — this httle 
 Work is most respectfully Dedicated (without permission) by 
 
 His obedient humble Servant, 
 
 a 
 
 C THE AUTHOR. 
 
 (See Times, Leading Article, Nov. 1st, Sept. 24th, and Oct. 23d, &c. 
 
 b -$0 6^?^ 
 
 There are a few inaccuracies, arising from haste, which the Reader will readily notice and correct. 
 
 \
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The Writer having occasion to consider the subject of rates upon railways, being 
 forcibly struck with their oppressive nature, feeling that the subject in its various beaiings 
 was too abstruse to be comprehended to its full extent without much research, and having 
 been advised to pursue it, and having kept it before the public during several months, now 
 presents the accompanying hastily written chapters in a connected form, and in the single 
 hope that they may contribute to a more extensive knowledge of this subject, and its 
 injustice, and be useful to the Companies in the future discussions which the subject will 
 force upon the Executive and the Legislature. 
 
 The Writer has only aimed at a matter-of-fact summary ; those who know him also 
 know that he has no personal interest in the subject, that he has pursued it from a strong 
 conviction of its injustice, and as being the most grievous to private enterprise that has 
 come under his observation during eighteen years experience of public matters. 
 
 November, 1811.
 
 
 i
 
 EATING OF RAILWAYS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ORIGIN AND RISE OF POOR RATES. 
 
 In recurring to this subject, I feel it fair to the 
 railway press to observe that as the oppressions 
 practised upon Companies have increased and con- 
 sequent appeals been made to the tribunals of this 
 country, the subject has been kept alive for several 
 months past, not only by those legal reports, but by 
 the consequent discussions which the railway jour- 
 nals have with usual fairness admitted on both sides, 
 and the writer having been allowed to share therein, 
 was proud to find also that his labours upon the 
 legal bearings were adopted by other journals, and 
 contributed to the better understanding of the 
 distinctions which exist upon the subject of rat- 
 ing ; yet it is still discussed vnth too loose a refer- 
 ence to its legal origin, or to the current of the legal 
 decisions ; even the Committee of the House of 
 Commons has contented itself with a superficial re- 
 ference to the law, and an innocent endeavour to 
 learn the nature of the arguments and decisions 
 upon the liability of railways, and every one 
 avoids wading through a mass of legal decisions. 
 But as the subject maybe considerably enlightened 
 by a summary of the reasonings adopted in the 
 legal cases, I shall undertake the task, and I pro- 
 pose to view this subject in the three branches of 
 its legality, its operation and injustice, and its 
 policy ; under the first branch to trace the reason- 
 ing of the Judges upon the operation of the statute 
 of 43rd Eliz. chap. 2 (1601;, by which provision 
 was made for setting to work and relieving the 
 poor, " and the overseers, with the consent of the 
 justices, were to raise by taxation of every in- 
 habitant, and other, of every occupier of lands, 
 houses, &c. sums for the relief of the lame, &c., to 
 be gathered out of the parish, according to the 
 ability of the parish." Before the Acts of Eliza- 
 beth (say the Poor Law Commissioners) the poor 
 were maintained by the religious and Catholic 
 houses which existed in the country, and there had 
 been no receptacle similar to workhouses except in 
 the time of Edward VI. The Act consolidated the 
 ancient provisions, but was a system dependent on 
 voluntary exertions; and after the enactment of 
 compulsory relief, the rates which in the middle of 
 the seventeenth century amounted yearly to a few 
 hundred thousand pounds only, and were of as 
 much insignificance as a public tax throughout 
 England could well be, amounted, in 18}3, in 
 
 England, to 6,200,000/'., besides other local rates, 
 which made up the " local taxation" to England 
 about 10,790,000/., and a total for England and 
 Wales of nearly 12,000,000/. yearly on property. 
 
 There was no other statute but that of Elizabeth 
 as to the general principle of rating until the 
 Parochial Assessment Act of 1836 (6th and 7th 
 Wm. IV. c. 96), which enacted that " no rate 
 thenceforth should be of any force which shall not 
 be made upon an estimate of the net annual value 
 of the several hereditaments rated thereunto, 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 taxes, and deducting there- 
 from the probable average annual cost of repairs, 
 insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to 
 maintain them in a state to command such rent." 
 "Provided always, that nothing herein contained 
 shall be construed to alter or affect the principles 
 or different relative liabilities, if any, according to 
 which different kinds of hereditaments are now by 
 law rateable." That Act did but make this change, 
 it (theoretically) substituted a " net annual value," 
 instead of the computation which parish ofticers 
 had adopted on a capricious annual value, or on a 
 proportionate part of that value. 
 
 The next statute was the one exempting " inhabit- 
 ants" from taxation ; that was the 3rd and 4th Vic- 
 toria, c. 89 (1840), which recited, that " it has 
 been held that inhabitants, as such, are liable in 
 respect of their ability derived from the profits of 
 stock in trade and of other property to be taxed, 
 for and towards the relief of the poor. And it is 
 expedient to repeal the liability of ' inhabitants ' as 
 such; be it therefore enacted, that it shall not be 
 lawful for the overseers, &c. to tax any inhabitant 
 as such inhabitant in respect of his ability derived 
 from the profits of stock in trade or any other pro- 
 perty, for or towards the relief of the poor ; but the 
 Act is not to affect the liability of occupiers," &c. 
 
 These are the three statutes which form the 
 basis of the present law of rating ; and it must be 
 remembered that all the decisions to which I shall 
 refer, were under the single statute of Elizabeth, or 
 before the Act of Victoria. 
 
 In the early consideration of the statute of Eliza- 
 beth, the first- class "occupiers" admitted of no 
 difficulty in its application, but the Court long were 
 at a loss what class was meant by the word " inha- 
 bitant," and Lord Mansfield declared (and Tindal 
 C. J. agreed in 1842, 2 Ad. & EU.) that " the
 
 words of the statute arc very loose aiul very gene- 
 ral, and they may be construed into any latitude 
 even to make all a man lias and all a man pets in 
 
 case of an occupier who was also an owner, by tak- 
 ing the rent which the " hereditaments," (the real 
 property,) and its annexations, without the applica- 
 
 any way the measure of his al)ility, for truly and tioii or addition of personalty, mijrhl reasonably be 
 substantially it is so, but usage had explained and expected to let for, and making the statutable and 
 narrowed it." Ultimately it appears to be the re- certain other deductions; but t(i arrive at that re- 
 sult of the cases that the Court arrived at the dis- I suit, as regards railways, the Court of Queen's 
 tinctions of two classes liable to be rated — 1st Oc- i Bench in eflect say, that you may take all the oc- 
 cupiers (owners or lessees) of laud>, houses, and cupiers' rccci])ls from the realty (the land), and 
 other real property, whose liability was as such from the personalty, the piofits of his trade, &c., 
 occupiers upon the produce and profits of the if you do but make besides the statutable deduc- 
 realty. 2d. Resident "inhabitants" (not occu- 
 piers of realty, &c.) having other property — local. 
 
 visible, and profitable, in the parish, and deriving 
 profit therefrom, and liable to rate as such, and 
 upon such profits (such as personal property, profits 
 on stock in trade, &c.) lu the cases of realty, the 
 mode of rating recognized by ]aw has been the fair 
 rent of the realty, having of course regard to its 
 position, but not to whether, if personal property 
 added, or if a particular trade or person, then a 
 certain sum would be earned, and if a brewer's or 
 
 tions, a further deduction for tenants' profits, stock, 
 &c., wher^iby you arrive at the supposed estimated 
 rent which any third person would give to the 
 owner to tenant the realty [without the trade]. 
 This course of proceeding is, I submit, in opposi- 
 tion to tlie current of the cases upon the liability 
 under the statute of Elizabeth ; it is a rating 
 upon somet'iiiig more than the worth of the realty, 
 and would be as applicable to canals, banking, or 
 lodging-houses, as to a railway, and indeed until 
 the late cases no such mode of assessment was ever 
 
 other trade, then a larger sura would be earned as I attempted. 
 
 profit from that business, and liable to increased ! Having now glanced at the results and divisions 
 rate. In the cases of water companies, gas com- which the law appears to me to have established, 
 panics, and canals (to which railways have been | I will go through those authorities wliich (I sub- 
 assimilated) the result of the legal decisions appears I mit) clearly establish these distinctions of realty 
 tobethatthcy were liable only as occupiers of rert/;^, I and personalty liabilities, and I shall afterwards 
 and upon the amount of their tolls as the produce, I refer to the decisions as to railways, to the mode of 
 and the only produce, of the land and realty; the I ascertaining the value, and to the deductions to be 
 only attempt to rate them on their other proilts or ' made. 
 
 earnings (as carriers) was in the Bridgewater Canal I CASES. 
 
 case, which was defeated by the lavv". It was only I" I-'O'''^ ^"f*^ ^- Grindall (1 Term ReporU) rate 
 for the produce and profits of the land itself, or "pon the ranger of a park, the question was, whether 
 arising directly and immediately from the laud, he was rateable at all ? Eyre, C. J., said, " It may be 
 
 stated as a general proposition that the ' immediate' 
 
 together with anything annexed to it without the 
 adjunct of personalty, that occupiers were ever 
 rated. The profits of trade and personal property 
 
 profits of land (some mines excepted) are a proper 
 subject of assessment : or, to speak more correctly, 
 that the pei-son who is in the possession ofthe imme- 
 
 e 
 
 were always confined to the class of inhabitants, diate profits of land may be taxed to the relief of th^ 
 such as the profits of a stage-coach proprietor, of poor, in respect of those immediate profits, that quoad 
 a carrier for hire, or of any other trade. If profits these immediate profits of the land, he is an occupier 
 were not rated in the parish, "occupiers" were tlie 
 only class rated, and then in respect only of really. 
 The cases up to 1810 were decided when both 
 classes were liable, and these principles are clearly 
 elucidated by the reasonings ofthe Judges in every 
 case on the subject, and none show a liability of a 
 stage coach proprietor's profits except as an inhabit- 
 ant; as (since 1840) the class "inhabitant" is no 
 longer subject to rate, the profits produced by the 
 means or use of personal property (that is, profits 
 of trade and stock as distinguished from the realty 
 or land profit of occupiers) are wholly excluded 
 
 ofthe land within the meaning of those authorities, 
 which have decided that the occupier only can be 
 assessed to the relief of the poor." Lord Mansfield, 
 referring to the lessee of a lead mine, said, " He was 
 in the possession of profits arising immediately from 
 the land, he was an occupier ofthe profits ofthe land, 
 and as such rateable, so was the Earl of Bute." 
 
 In Ilex V. Miller (Cowper), rate upon lessee of land 
 and of a well thereout arising, Lord Mansfield said, 
 " This is not a rate upon the profits ofthe well, but 
 upon four acres of land, let to the defendant at 100/. 
 a year, and the value arises partly from the buildings 
 and partly from the spring that produces the mineral 
 
 from liability, and the only liability left is that of water; therefore the profits of the spring are part 
 
 occupiers in respect of realty, &c. (heredit.-iments). I "^ ''"^ produce of the land. In Worcestershire and 
 
 The course of their taxation as prescribed by the i Cheshire, where there are salt springs, the rent ofthe 
 
 statute is upon the "estimate ofthe net annual value" '"" ' "' ""■""'""''''" "" ""' ' 
 
 of the " hereditaments," that is to say, of the rent at 
 
 which the same might nearly be expected to let 
 
 from year to year free of certain deductions, and the 
 
 usual mode sanctioned by law of ascertaining that 
 
 value was, and still is, by taking the rent paid by 
 
 the tenant as lessee, and making certain deductions, 
 
 or if he were not rack-rented, as well as in the other 
 
 land is increased considerably on that account, so 
 here the consideration ofthe well increases the rent, 
 it is part ofthe produce ofthe land, and therefore, as 
 such, it ought to be rated." 
 
 In Rex v. Nicholson (12 East), Ellenborough said, 
 " This is not merely a demise of a personal chattel of 
 the ore after it is gotten, but ofthe ore which is to be 
 gotten, and which is part of the solid mass of the 
 land."
 
 In Queen v. Crease, (1S39) (11 Ad. and Ell.), it was 
 admitted " that the principle that no person can be 
 an occupier unless he has the exclusive right to enjoy 
 some portion of the soil, is stated by Parke J. in Rex 
 V. Mersey Navigation Company, and was the ground 
 of decision in that case and Rex v. Thomas." 
 
 In Rowls V. GcUs (Cowper), a " lessee" of lead 
 mines was assessed for " lot and cope," Lord Mans- 
 field said, " The Poor's Rate is not a tax on the land, 
 but a personal charge in respect of the land. This is 
 a persona! charge by reason of the annual profits 
 which the lessee of the Crown receives out of the 
 land. In general, the farmer or occupier of land, 
 and not the landlord, is liable to this tax, for it arises 
 by reason of the land, in the parish." 
 
 In Rex V. Earl of Pomfret (5 Maule and S.), a rate 
 upon the owner of lead ore, in respect of a reserved 
 share smelted. Ellenborough said, " This is not a 
 reservation of any part of the thing demised, it is not 
 a reservation of any part of the ore, or of the mineral, 
 in its natural or primitive state, but of something en- 
 tirely different, of a metal produced by smelting, and 
 mixed with another matter, and entirely different 
 from either of the two, and rather as a manufacture 
 of art and labour, ' resulting from the use' and appli- 
 cation of these materials, ' than the original earth 
 itself.' " 
 
 In Rex v. St. Austell (5 Barn, and Al.) — A rate on 
 owner as occupier, in respect of a reserved share of 
 produce of a mine, Bayley, J., said, ." Here the per- 
 son rated is in fact an occupier of land, and derives a 
 profit in respect of that occupation ; and he has not 
 dispossessed himself of the possession of the land, as 
 was done in the two latter cases of Rochester v. Pom- 
 fret. In Rowles v. Gells, it was first decided that a 
 party was rateable for lot and cope. If the lot and 
 cope had not been rateable in the hands of the origi- 
 nal proprietor, it would not have been so in the hands 
 of his lessee. The true ground of that decision was, 
 that the party was there considered as an occupier of 
 the land. Rex v. St. Agnes proceeded on the same 
 ground." 
 
 In Crease v. Sawle, 1842 (2 Ad. and Ell. N. C.)— A 
 rate upon the lessee of mines. The question was, 
 " Whether, as the law of rating under statute 43rd 
 Eliz. is at present understood, the rate can stand? 
 The plaintiff contends that he is not an occupier at 
 all; but that if he is, he is occupier only of part of a 
 tin mine; and that in either point of view the rate is 
 bad." For the defendants it was said, " the plaintiff 
 is rateable as a party receiving profits out of realty; 
 a distinction is indeed suggested between this case 
 and all the previous ones on the subject, namely, that 
 in those cases the party rated was an owner of the 
 soil or mine from which the toll issued. Now here 
 the Duke of Cornwall was in the position of owner. 
 It was said here, that no interest in the land passed, 
 but a mere authority to the grantee to dig. That may 
 be so, and in that respect the case resembles Rex v. 
 St. Austell ; Taunton J. in Freemayn's case (4 B. and 
 Ad.) says, that the distinction as to mines is very subtle, 
 but that possibly the cases may be reconciled by dis- 
 tinguishing between the reservation of a rent and of 
 a part of the soil itself. But if the owner, by reserv- 
 ing a part of the soil — in other words, of the mine — 
 become an occupier of such part, to rate him for that 
 is to rate him for the occupation of a mine, and that 
 is not within 43rd Elizabeth." Rate disallowed. 
 
 In Rex v. St. Nicholas (Cald.) rate on a " machine 
 house," Lord Mansfield said, " It is not in terms said 
 
 that the machine is annexed to the freehold [liousej 
 but the nature of the thing supplies the defect in the 
 expression. Indeed the expression sufficiently shews 
 it. What is the house ? It is ' the machine house.' 
 They are one entire thing, and are together rated by 
 the common known name, which comprehends both, 
 and the principal purpose of the house is for weigh- 
 ing. The steel yard is the most valuable part of the 
 house ; the house therefore applied to this use may be 
 said to be built for the steel yard and not the steel 
 yard for the house." Willes, J., said, " There does 
 not seem to have been any doubt but that the machine 
 was, as it is described in the rate, ' appurtenant' to the 
 building ; if so its clear profits are undoubtedly rate- 
 able. If a billiard table stand [fixed] in a liouse, and 
 the house should, in respect of such table, let at a 
 higher sum, it would be rateable, while the table con- 
 tinued there and was so let, at the advanced rent." 
 Buller, J., said, " the conclusion of this case is strong 
 to shevT that the justices considered the machine as 
 part of the house; for the question they raise, the 
 point they bring forward and refer to the court is, 
 vv^hether the profits are rateable ? and so long as they 
 are received, they undoubtedly are. It is like the 
 case of Rex v. Miller, the Cheltenham Spa. There is 
 an extraordinary profit arising from this modification 
 of the enjoyment. The only question therefore is, 
 whether a man shall be rated for the property he 
 has ? If a house to-day is let for 30/. per annum, 
 and to-morrow, if turned into a shop, would let for 
 50/., when it is turned into a shop it shall be rated at 
 50/. Its being called the machine house shews that 
 the house and machine are an entire thing." 
 
 In Rex V. Hogg (1 Term Reports), rate on an en- 
 gine-house with a carding machine, for the increased 
 value it conferred ; all the engines were placed on 
 the floor, and no ways avmexed or fastened to the 
 same. Ashhurst said, " It may be fixed to the walls 
 of the building, and considering the nature of the 
 thing, it must be so, for it is stated that the engine 
 is v.orked by water, fitc, and it is not stated nega- 
 tively that the engine is not fixed to the house." 
 Buller, J., said, " It is clear that both the engine and 
 the house go together, for they are in the hands of a 
 leaseholder — they are rented together. The question 
 ought always to be, whether the thing which exists 
 is to be rated ; and the rule is, that personal property, 
 if visible and yielding a certain annual permanent 
 profit, may be rated. In the present case, the house 
 and the engine are let together as an entirety, and 
 upon this ground also I am of opinion that the rate 
 is good." Grose, J., " The question for the opinion 
 of this Court is, whether by law this particular species 
 of property, as described in the case, is or is not rate- 
 able? Now the property in question is all let toge- 
 ther under one lease. . Then the engine is let as part 
 of the house, and the rate is upon the engine-house." 
 
 In Rex V. Bradford (4 Maule and S.), rate on occu- 
 pier of a canteen under a lease to pay separate rents 
 for the house and the canteen, Lord Ellenborough, 
 (C.J.) said, " I cannot look at the reservation in this 
 indenture in any other point of view than as a mode 
 which the parties have chosen to divide the rent ; for 
 it is in substance but one entire rent, payable for the 
 occupation of a real tenement, and for the enjoyment 
 of the advantages belonging to it. From its vicinity 
 to the barracks, it of course would attract to it almost 
 all the custom of that neighbourhood, and this is the 
 incident to the property which renders it valuable. 
 If this could be separated from the value of the tene-
 
 ment, and the rent distributed accordingly, we sliould 
 henceforth never see a demise of any public house in 
 which this form of distribution would not be observed, 
 the lessor would let the tenement at the bare rent 
 which it was worth, and the privilege of carrying on 
 the trade as a separate and independent rent ; and 
 this would be a receipt for reducing the annual value 
 of the tenement to a mere shadow. But we nmst 
 judge of things as they really are, and not as they 
 appear to be, and therefore we are to consider here 
 whether this be not substantially one entire rent in 
 respect of one entire subject, though artificially di- 
 vided into several payments. Now, it docs appear to 
 me that this is as much a profit appurtenant to the 
 tenement arising from its local situation, as was the 
 profit of the weighing or carding machine to the 
 tenements there rated. And it has not been impro- 
 perly likened to the case of a soke mill, which is let 
 at a higher rent because it has a right to the sole 
 nmlcture of all the corn and grain in the neighbour- 
 hood. Can it be doubted, that this would form a 
 part of the rateable value of the mill itself? There- 
 fore I cannot consider this reservation distributive, 
 where it is in truth in respect of one entire taking of 
 the benefits incident to it. Now, this canteen stands 
 precisely on the same footing as a public-house, that 
 is, it acquires a value froxn its situation, and from its 
 being fitted up in a manner calculated to answer the 
 purpose of a public-house. It is quite iannaterial 
 whether the rent which is paid for it is divided into 
 separate parts, so much for the house, and so much 
 for the privilege that it enjoys, if it be a rent for one 
 entire canteen, and the party is not rated in respect of 
 the profits of his trade, but only of the rent." 
 
 In Rex V. Bell (7 T. R.) the Court held that the 
 Dean and Chapter could not grant the soil to the de- 
 fendant, and nothing but an easement passed, which 
 was expressly holden in Rex v. JollifFe (2 T. II.) not 
 to be liable to rate ; and there BuUer J. said, " This 
 is only a bare right of passage, and not a grant of the 
 profits of land." 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE PRINCIPLE — CASES CONTINUED. 
 
 The uniformity of the legal decisions illustrate 
 more forcibly than any remarks can do, the limita- 
 tion of the liability to " realty," and the distinctions 
 which were pointed out in the preceding chapter, 
 ou the application of the statute of Elizabeth and 
 the liabilities thereunder, that I continue the quo- 
 tations of the judicial dicta. Having in the pre- 
 ceding chapter shown the restricted liability of 
 land and its annexations, of mines, and of ease- 
 ments, I shall bring down the series to Gas, Water, 
 and Canal Companies, tolls, and light-houses, and 
 to the two decisions upon the liability of railways : 
 
 In Rex V. Bilston (5 Barn. & Cress.) the owner and 
 occupier of part of a mine was rated for an engine he 
 had erected. Bayley J. said, " This appears to me 
 a very plain case. The carding-engine and weighing- 
 machine were each considered as part and parcel of a 
 building, and were rated as such ; so also in the case 
 of a canteen, the privilege of selling liquors was con- 
 sidered as ' annexed' to the house, and as forming 
 part of its value. Here a person working in a mine, 
 in his own land, has erected an engine for the pur- 
 
 pose of working that mine, and which is of no other 
 use. The occupier of the mine, as such, is not rate- 
 able under the provisions of the 43rd Elizabeth. In 
 many such mines there are railways under ground, 
 which greatly enhance the value of the mine, and 
 therefore of the land, but they cannot be rated, and 
 in principle they are on the same footing as this en- 
 gine. This is a mode of drawing the water from the 
 mine, the railway is to facilitate the conveyance of the 
 ore to the foot of the shaft. Each is of use in carry- 
 ing on the mining operations, but of no other use. 
 Suppose a conveyance or lease of this mine with the 
 machinery had been made, it is clear that the engine 
 would have passed to the grantee or lessee, it must 
 therefore be considered as part and parcel of the 
 mine, and is, as well £is the mine itself, exempt from 
 poor-rates." 
 
 Rex V. Nicholson (12 East) was a rate for Tolls of 
 a ferry, on a non-occupier and non-resident. Lord 
 Ellenborough, C. J., said, " In general the rate has 
 been imposed on some real property in the parish, out 
 of which the tolls arose, as on the sluice in King v. 
 Cardington, and in the Salter's load sluice case." 
 Bayley, J., " All the cases of tolls held rateable have 
 been where the tolls arose out of the use of land ;" 
 and Le Blanc, J., said, "the packet owner (Jones's 
 case) was only held to be rateable as an inhabitant, 
 and for his profits in the parish where he resided, and 
 where the boats were kept and produced the profit to 
 him, and he was considered not to be rateable in any 
 other place to which the boats sailed where he was 
 not resident;" Bayley, J., said, "In King v. Card- 
 ington the party was rated for the sluice of which he 
 was the occupier, which sluice was real property^ 
 In the case of canal tolls the proprietors rated were 
 the occupiers of the canals, and canals are real pro- 
 perty; they are land applied to a particular purpose, 
 and the tolls are the profits arising from the use of the 
 land, and are given to the proprietor as a compen- 
 sation for the use of it in that manner." 
 
 In Rex V. Baptist Mill Co. (1 Maul & S.), a rate on 
 a lessee for lot, toll, &c. of calamine, as occupiers of 
 land, Le Blanc J. said, " where a person receives 
 without risk part of the produce extracted from the 
 bowels of the earth, he is an occupier of land, but 
 where he merely receives a rent, or money payment, 
 there the Court has held, as in Rex v. Rochester, that 
 he is not an occupier." Bayley, J., said, "So in Rex 
 V. Nicholson, and Williams v. Jones, there was no 
 pretence for setting up any person as an occupier of 
 land ; a distinction is made that here is a demise, not 
 of the land, or any interest in the land, but of ' lot 
 toll, and free share,' and so it does not operate until 
 the lot, &c., are severed from the land, but it seems to 
 me as if the lease demised a share in the produce of 
 the land before the mineral is raised, it was intended 
 that these lessees should have every benefit which 
 would otherwise have resulted to the lord. I cannot 
 therefore distinguish this from the case of granting a 
 share in the land, which is not co-extensive with the 
 entire interest. It is not doing any violence to this 
 lease to consider the lessees under it as occupiers of 
 land." 
 
 Now take the case of Gas Companies:— 
 In Rex V. Birmingham Gas Company (1 B. & C.) 
 the Company were rated for land, pipes, and pro- 
 fits ; inhabitants were not rated; Abbott C. J., said, 
 "The question proposed to us- is not whether the 
 Company be rateable for their buildings above ground
 
 or their pipes under ground, but tawhat amount they 
 are rateable; I am of opinion that the amount in re- 
 spect of which they are rateable, is the sum for vvliich 
 the buildings, trunks, and pipes would let to a person 
 who is willing to carry on the [a] business there. It 
 appears from the statement in the case that the pre- 
 mises, trunks, and pipes, if rated to the poor as other 
 lands in the parish, that is if the profits arising from 
 the sale of gas are not included, are worth 200/. per 
 annum; but if the profits are included then they are 
 worth 800/. per annum ; I am of opinion that the profits 
 are not in this case rateable, if they were, a black- 
 smith's forge might be rated, not at what it would let 
 for but at the sum which the blacksmith acquires by 
 it. The distinction between the cases cited and the 
 present is, that here the profits rated are those of a 
 manufactory, which are obtained by applying the 
 skill and industry of man to capital brought from a 
 distance for that purpose. They are very different 
 from the profits of canals or of mineral waters, which 
 are natural products arising within the parish and 
 rendering the land in which they are situate more 
 valuable." And Bayley, J., said, " This is really a 
 question of ' quantum ;' in most of the cases cited the 
 question was whether the property was rateable or 
 not, and though the profits may have been referred to 
 as fixing the ' quantum,' the Court never went into 
 tliat question. Here the question of ' quantum' is 
 presented to the Court, and a distinction is taken be- 
 tween the value of the land ' per se ' and when it is 
 used for the purposes of the trade. 1 am of opinion 
 that the Company ought to be assessed, not at a sum 
 equal to the annual profits of their trade, but at that 
 sum which the buildings, trunks, and pipes would 
 produce to them if let at an annual rent to persons 
 willing to carry on the trade, or that rent which the 
 Company would be forced to pay if the premises were 
 not their own property." Holroyd, J., " I am of 
 opinion that the rate ought to be amended, as it is 
 stated that in this parish the profits of other manu- 
 factories are not rated ; and here an attempt is made 
 to rate the pipes and the gas ; but that cannot be done. 
 The proper criterion for the rate to be imposed upon 
 these lands and buildings is the rent at which they 
 could be let to a person willing to carry on the busi- 
 ness," [which can be exclusively assured to them, or 
 one of their own, and not the Company's.] Best, J., 
 said, " This rate cannot be supported ; it is an assess- 
 ment upon the profits of trade ; a rate even upon the 
 net profits of any undertaking must be unjust and un- 
 equal in a place where similar profits and stock in 
 trade of others are not generally rated, [as now under 
 the Act of Vict.] " The rate is in this case clearly on 
 the profits of a trade and manufacture. The profits 
 of this Company are very different from the tolls of a 
 canal. When a canal is once formed and filled with 
 water, it produces to the proprietor, without anything 
 further being done a permanent profit, in the shape 
 of tolls ; but the Gas Company could obtain no profit 
 by merely laying down these pipes for the conveyance 
 of gas through the streets, the gas must afterwards be 
 manufactured by the Company at a great expense, 
 and sent through those pipes before they will be en- 
 titled to any recompense. The Gas Company stand 
 therefore in the same situation as any other manu- 
 facturer who produces by artificial means a saleable 
 commodity. Now the profits of such a manufacture 
 could not, with justice, be rated to the relief of the 
 poor in a parish where other profits and other stock 
 in trade are not rated. I think, therefore, that the 
 
 Company ought to be assessed at that annual sum for 
 which the premises and pipes would let to a person 
 willing to carry on the trade, and therefore that the 
 rate ought to be amended by inserting the sum of 
 200/. instead of 800/." 
 
 In Rex V. Brighton Gas Company (5 B. & C.) a 
 rate included gas pipes, &c. Bayley J., " If it were 
 doubtful in this case whether the pipes constituted 
 part of the freehold, the Company would at all events 
 be liable to be rated for an occupation way ; but I 
 think that we may collect from the case that pipes 
 are fixed in the soil, and if so then Rex v. Bath 
 establishes that they are to be deemed occupiers of 
 that land in which the pipes are fixed. Rex v, the 
 Rochdale Water Company, and Rex v. Birmingham 
 Gas Company establish the same principle. In the 
 latter case, part of the apparatus used for the manu- 
 facture of gas and coke was affixed to the freehold, 
 and part was not ; and it was held that the Company 
 were liable to be rated to the extent of their occupa- 
 tion of land, and that the branches and pipes were to 
 be considered part and parcel of the land. In many 
 Acts of Parliament authorising the making of a canal, 
 it is provided that the Company shall not be rated at 
 a higher rate than the adjoining land ; but if there 
 be no such provision, then they must be rated in 
 respect of the value which the land has acquired 
 from its having been used for the purposes of the 
 canal. There is no such provision in this case, and as 
 the pipes are laid down so as to become part and par- 
 cel of the land for the time they remain, they thereby 
 improve the value of the land in the same manner as 
 buildings erected upon the land, and the whole must 
 be rated accordingly." Holroyd, J., " I am of opinion 
 that the Gas Company are liable to be rated. In one 
 case, it was held, that a weighing machine affixed to 
 a building was liable to be rated, on the ground that 
 the land and building constituted one entire thing 
 and that the house was much more valuable from 
 the machine being appurtenant thereto. I think, 
 therefore, that so long as the Company used the land 
 for the purpose of their pipes, they are rateable, for 
 they have the exclusive occupation of that part of the 
 land in which their pipes lie, and that they are rate- 
 able for the entire profits of that land, part of them 
 arising from the gas pipes placed in the land." Lit- 
 tledale, J., " The rate must be upon the land. Here 
 the pipes being fixed to the land, the land and pipes 
 are to be considered as one entire thing. The only 
 difficulty in the case is whether the Company are to 
 be considered as occupiers of land." 
 
 Now take the cases of locks and tolls upon Canals, 
 &c., and of Water Companies. 
 
 Rex V. Macdonald (12 East.) was a rate on occu- 
 piers for locks, dues, &c. Lord EUenborough said, 
 " the Court have only said that tolls are not rateable 
 per se, but only when connected and rated conjunc- 
 tively with real and substantial property situated in 
 the parish, which, as yielding profit there by means 
 of the tolls, is the proper subject of rating within the 
 Act of Elizabeth ; now here the lock itself is rated, 
 which is something real and substantial, locally si- 
 tuate in the township, and producing profit, and the 
 addition of the dues or rates is merely giving other 
 names for the same thing." 
 
 In Rex V. Bell (5 M. & S.) a lessee was rated for 
 corn tolls as an occupier. EUenborough, C. J., said, 
 " I cannot say upon this statement that the appellant 
 is an occupier of land j there is nothing to give this
 
 toll a corporeal quality." Bayley, J., " Bell is assess- 
 ed in the rate for ' corn tolls,' which it is plain from 
 the statement of the case were mere market tolls, and 
 not incident to the soil." 
 
 In Ilex V. Sculcoates (12 East.) Ellenborough said, 
 "the Hull Dock Company were in receipt of tolls for 
 the benefit of the shareholders in respect of the use of 
 the docks. I know of no instance where a Canal Com- 
 pany has been held rateable for the mere space occu- 
 pied by the canal in a particular parish, if no tolls 
 were received or became due there; and I cannot dis- 
 tinguish between land converted into a drainage and 
 into a canal. We have no doul)t upon the case, and 
 arc clearly of opinion that the Coumiissioners having 
 no beneficial occupation of the property in this parish, 
 either for themselves or others, are not liable to be 
 rated for it. If we were to hold otherwise, it would 
 be opening a question of beneficial occupation in 
 every case where a canal or turnpike road passes 
 through the parish, though the tolls were not due 
 there, which has never been considered ius liable to be 
 rated in such parishes, but only where the benefit ac- 
 crues." 
 
 In Rex V. New River Company (1 Maul. & S.) 
 Lord Ellenborough said, " This is a rate imposed on 
 land, including a spring of water, as being of the ag- 
 gregate value of 301)/. The case admits that the land 
 without the spring would be worth 5/., but admits 
 that if the advantage which the Company derive from 
 the use of the spring may by law be included in the 
 rate upon the land, the land and spring together are 
 of the annual value at which they are rated. Here, 
 then, is land and water enclosed in a basin upon the 
 land, which falls within the legal description of land, 
 and although a considerable portion of the profits of 
 such water is derived from pipes through which it is 
 distributed to other places, yet it is found that the 
 water has a certain ascertained value at the fountain 
 head. It is admitted that the spring and the land in 
 which it rises are the freehold of the Company, and 
 in their occupation, and upon that subject there can- 
 not be a reasonable doubt. I cannot distinguish this 
 case from the conmion case of land on which corn 
 grows. In such case the land is assessed according to 
 its value, and that value is estimated according to 
 that which it produces, so here the land produces a 
 spring, and the value of it is to be computed accord- 
 ing to the benefit which the spring produces to the 
 Company. I say nothing as to the quantum of the 
 rate, that being a question wholly in the discretion of 
 the sessions. By that rate the Company are rated for 
 land, which rate is imposed on them as occupiers of 
 local corporeal property within the liberty. The case 
 of tolls upon canals is perfectly distinguishable, be- 
 cause tolls exist as local visible property in the parish 
 where they accrue, and before they can be rated all 
 the cases have held that they must exist as toil, but 
 this is a rate on land situate in the parish, &c. The 
 question then is, what land do the Company occupy 
 within the liberty? not what pro.lts do they receive 
 there, and what is its annual value 1" 
 
 In King v. Lov.-er Mitton (9 B. & C.)— Rate for 
 basin, tolls, duties, &c.— On argument for this rate it 
 was " admitted to be fully settled by recent decisions 
 that the tolls of a canal are rateable as the profits of 
 land (Rex v. Milton, 3 B. & A.) ; and the New River 
 case shows that they may be taken into account. 
 That case is precisely similar to the present in prin- 
 ciple. There the water was conveyed to the other 
 trenches in pipes under ground, here in trenches 
 
 above ground; there it was sold to housekeepers for 
 domestic purposes, here it is sold to bargemen for the 
 navigation of their barges. Mayor of Bath, Roch- 
 dale Water-works, aiul I'almer's cases, fully establish 
 the principle contended for." 
 
 In Rex V. Milton (3 B. & Aid.)— Rate on proprie- 
 tor for river tonnage.— Best, J., said, " It is now clearly 
 established that tolls ' per se' are not rateable. The 
 only mode by which the tolls of a canal become 
 rateable, is by rating the land itself, or that part of 
 the land occupied by the canal, which is locally situate 
 within the parish; the tolls then are the profits aris- 
 ing from that part of the land." 
 
 In Rex V. Palmer (1 B. & C.)— Rate on occupiers 
 of land, navigation tolls, &c., in one parish for the 
 entire tolls earned in all— Abbott, J., said, " the pro- 
 prietors of a navigation are therefore rateable only as 
 the occupiers of the canal, or land covered with water , 
 for their tolls, as profits arising out of that land so 
 used. They are rateable, therefore, in every parish 
 through which the canal passes, in respect of the land 
 there, and so used for the canal." 
 
 In Rex V. Oxford Canal Navigation (4 B. & Cr.), 
 rate for dues, &c., the appellants derived no profit 
 except from the tonnage, and were rated upon the 
 full amount of the tolls ; and Abbott, J., said, " it is 
 clearly established by Rex v. Milton that the proprie- 
 tors are rateable as the occupiers of the canal, or land 
 covered with water, for the mileage duty as profits 
 arising out of that land so used, and in every parish 
 through which the canal passes, in respect of the land 
 there situate, and so used for the canal ; but as to 
 coals passing into the Grand Junction Canal, instead 
 of a toll per mile, there is to be paid a fixed sum, or 
 compensation duty, without regard to distance, but 
 still that sum or duty is earned in consequence of the 
 goods passing along the Oxford Canal." Bayley, J., 
 said, " The compensation duty stands upon the same 
 footing as the mileage duty, and each is liable to be 
 rated. Now the mileage duty is rateable, because it 
 is the profit accruing from land covered with water, 
 and the towing path, for each mile over which the 
 goods are conveyed, and the compensation duty is 
 the profit arising from the land covered with water 
 and the towing path through the whole line of the 
 canal ; and the Company are rateable for the propor- 
 tions earned by them in each parish through wliicli 
 the canal passes." 
 
 In Rex V. Bridgwater Canal (9 B. & C.) the Com- 
 pany were rated as occupiers of land for profits. The 
 objection made to the rate was, that the trustees were 
 rated to the full amount of their profits, and other 
 parties in proportion to the rent which they pay. 
 Bayley, J. said, " We have no doubt that the trustees 
 must be rated as occupiers of land, and that the 
 same principle of rating must be adopted whether 
 the party be owner and occupier, or occupier only. 
 If land be occupied by a person as a farmer, the 
 value of the occupation is the rent paid by him for 
 it. That however is not supposed to be the value of 
 the land, or of its produce, minus the expense of 
 producing it, but the value after deducting the ex- 
 penses of cultivation and of the farmer's subsistence. 
 I lay out of consideration the fact of the trustees 
 being carriers, because their occupation only is to be 
 considered. The profits of carrying goods are the 
 profits of their trade. The tonnage is the profit of 
 the land occupied by them. The other sums re- 
 ceived by them constitute the profits of their trade. 
 The principle of our decision in this case is, that the
 
 same rule is to be applied to all occupiers, and that 
 the vent or sum at which the land will let is the cri- 
 terion of the value of the occupation." 
 
 In King v. Chelsea Water Works Company (5 B. 
 & Ad.) a rate for land, reservoirs, pipes, &c., the lia- 
 bility of Water Companies was much discussed. The 
 Company had by their pipes " the exclusive use and 
 possession (said Lord Denman) of a part of the soil 
 in their own right," confirming Lord Ellenborough's 
 decision in Rex o. Bath, (14, East.) that " he could 
 not distinguish between the case of water collected in 
 a reservoir or in pipes, each being attached to the 
 soil." And the Court approved of the distinctions 
 between mere privileges, easements, and way-leaves, 
 were nothing corporeal passed and no exclusive occu- 
 pation, and so not liable to rate, (as in Thomas's 
 Mersey Navigation, Ayr Navigation, Jolliffe's and 
 Bell's cases.) and other cases of a corporeal heredita- 
 ment being liable (as in Bath, Rochdale Water Works 
 Company (1 M. & S.) Birmingham and Brighton Gas 
 cases.) 
 
 In King v. Mersey Navigation Company (9 B. & C.) 
 Parke, J., said " No person can be an occupier unless 
 he has the exclusive right to enjoy some portion of 
 the soil. The Companies who have gas pipes have 
 the exclusive right to enjoy a portion of the soil, they j 
 have the exclusive right of occupying by means of 
 these pipes that portion of the soil in which the main 
 is"— and noticing a distinction between Canal Compa- 
 nies and River Navigation Companies, held, the hiiier 
 were " not liable to be rated for the bed of the river, 
 having only an easement in it." And the Aire and 
 Calder and Thomas's Cases (9 B. & C.) were to same 
 effect. 
 
 The principles have been further illustrated in cases 
 as to Lighthouses. 
 
 In Rex V. Coke (5 B. & C.) it was held that tolls 
 of a lighthouse were not liable. Bayley, J., said, 
 " The rate is upon the lighthouse with the duties or 
 contribution-money in respect of ships, &c., passing 
 by. To make the defendant rateable to the full extent 
 of 2,000/. a year, it must be shown that he comes 
 within the words of the statute, 43rd Elizabeth, and 
 is the occupier of a house or land of that annual value. 
 Where there has been one uniform course of proceed- 
 ing, as to property of this description, for a very con- 
 siderable period of time, we ought not to introduce 
 any alteration, unless it be founded upon sound legal 
 principles. In Rex v. Macdonald, the rate was upon the 
 lock as occupiers, in respect of the use of the land, for 
 the lock dues were payable in respect of the use of the 
 lock, which itself formed part and parcel of the land. 
 In the Oxford Canal Company, the Company were 
 rated as the occupiers of the towing-path land speci- 
 fically. The proprietors were occupiers of the land, 
 and it was in respect of that occupation, and that only, 
 that they were chargeable in respect of the use of the 
 land in that parish. Rex v. Bradford is very differ- 
 ent from the present case, there the defendant was 
 assessed as the occupier of a canteen. It was held 
 that the canteen was rateable for the entire value of 
 the house and privilege, that being a profit appur- 
 tenant to the tenement arising from its local situa- 
 tion, and Bradford being the occupier of a tene- 
 ment of that value. In the New River Company, 
 there could be no doubt that the land in Amwell 
 yielded, at the place where the water rose, a profit 
 equal to the value of the water ; it was part of the 
 produce of the land of that parish, it still constituted 
 part of the land in the parish, and was rateable there 
 
 in the same manner as land producing vegetables is 
 rateable in the place where they are grown, and not 
 where they are sold. The proprietor of the light- 
 house in this case is at liberty either in that house or 
 any other which he may think fit to erect or to rent, 
 to burn lamps, &c. If it were imperative on the 
 grantee to burn his lights within a particular light- 
 house, still if the privilege is not given to him by rea- 
 son of his being the occupier of that house, it would 
 be appurtenant to, bui- distinct from, the house where 
 it was to be exercised, and the duties payable to him 
 in respect of the light would be profits arising from 
 the exercise of that privilege, and not from the house 
 or land where it happens to be exercised. The 
 grantee would in that case have an exclusive privi- 
 lege of carrying on in that particular house (if I may 
 so express myself) a particular description of trade ; 
 but there would be no necessary connection between 
 tlie freehold interest in that house and the light. 
 The apparatus may or may not be attached to the 
 freehold, and in that case the tolls payable by the 
 ships would not constitute any part of the profits of 
 the land, and would not therefore be rateable, and 
 those profits are not rateable as constituting part of 
 the value of that house or lai-d. And if it be once as- 
 certained that the tolls and duties, qua tolls and 
 duties, are not rateable, then, although the business 
 must be carried on in i\ house, or even in this specific 
 house, a distinction must he taken beiween the value 
 of the Oiiuse inw-hicli that particular trade (for I con- 
 sider it a species of trade) is carried on, and the 
 profit arising from the trade itself. Those lights are 
 not of necessily attached to the freehold, and if they 
 are not attached to the freehold they would be per- 
 sonal propciiy." Liti.liidale, J., " It is admitted that the 
 tolls *■ per se' are not rateable, but in some cases where 
 they arise from and are so far connected with a house 
 or land tliiu the; land or house which gives occasion 
 to ihe toll is made more valuable in itself, that in- 
 creased value depending upon and being regulated 
 by the profits produced by the toll is the subject of 
 the rate. I think the light is not connected with the 
 land, and that the profits arising from it are not part 
 of the profits of the land or house. The light is not 
 the ' produce of but is ' collateral' to the land. The 
 lighr. is not any part of the freehold ; it is an acci- 
 dental circunistfnce that it is placed on the freehold, 
 it might be placed on a moveable frame, so as to be 
 easily displaced, or it might be suspended at the end 
 of a pole. In the case of a canal the owner of the 
 goods makes use of the canal, which is rateable as 
 land, the party paying the tolls has actually the use 
 of the property itself which is the subject of the rate. 
 So in the case of a bridge, the thing which produces 
 the tolls is used. So as to the tolls of a market, the 
 tolls arise by persons bringing their goods into the 
 market, and the profit arises within the district. So 
 in the case of a. soke mill, a party takes hia own corn 
 to be ground at the place, and he has within the par 
 ish the use of the thing which is the subject of the 
 rate. To make tolls rateable there must not only be 
 a profit produced within the parish, but it must also 
 arise from the use of the thing, and in respect of it. 
 Here the ships have not thac sort of use but they have 
 merely a transient view of the light as they pass. 
 They do not come within a lighthouse as they do 
 within a dock, in which case they have the actual use 
 and occupation of the dock. This is distinguishable 
 from all the other cases where the tolls themselves 
 have arisen in respect not only of what was produced
 
 8 
 
 in the parish, but from the actual use of ' the thing' 
 which was tlie subject of the rate." 
 
 There are some cases which illustrate still fur- 
 ther the exclusion of profits in arriving at the value 
 of the realty, in a rate on occupiers :— 
 
 In Rex V. Collinson (8 East) Le Blanc, J., asked, 
 " Whether the proprietors of stage coaches were liable 
 to be rated in every parish where they stopped and 
 changed horses in the course of their journey ?" 
 
 In Ilex V. Ringwood (Cowper) a rate was quashed 
 by Sessions because an inhabitant for stock in trade 
 of a brewery was not rated: it did not appear that 
 personalty was rated in the parish. Lord Mansfield 
 said, " In general, I believe, neither here nor in any 
 other part of the kingdom, is personal property taxed 
 to the poor. The Justices at Sessions should have 
 amended the rate, if they thought this property rate- 
 able; and then on attempting to do it they would 
 have discovered the wisdom of conforming to the 
 practice, which they expressly state in the case, of 
 not rating it. If they had tried to have amended it, 
 how would they have rated this stock? Are the 
 hops, and the malt, and the boiler, to be rated at so 
 much for each ? Or is the trader to be rated for the 
 gross sum which his whole stock would sell for ? If 
 the Justices had considered, they would have found 
 out the sense of not rating it at all; especially when 
 it appears that mankind has, as it were, with one 
 universal consent, refrained from rating it ; the difii- 
 culties attending it are too great, and so the Justices 
 have found them. As to the authorities which have 
 been cited, they are very loose indeed ; and even if 
 they were less so, one would not pay them much de- 
 ference, especially as they differ ; and the rules they 
 lay down have not been carried into execution for 
 upwards of 100 years. Shall the tools of a carpenter 
 be called his stock in trade, and as such be rated ? A 
 tailor has no stock in trade; a butcher has none ; a 
 shoemaker has a great deal. Shall the tailor be un- 
 taxed and the shoemaker taxed ? Under the Land 
 Tax Act in London, to avoid inconveniences, they 
 tax the house in which a person lives at a certain sum, 
 by guess; and to avoid discovering a man's stock they 
 tax it at random, insomuch that I have known a house 
 occupied by a physician taxed the same as when a 
 merchant had it." 
 
 In Rex V. Ellis (1 Ma. & S.), a rate on a " fishery" 
 was held good, " because it appeared to them that the 
 grant of the fishery was not to be taken as a grant of 
 a mere right of fishing or incorporeal hereditament ; 
 the terms of the grant, coupled with the constant 
 usage of landing nets on the shore, 'fixing' them to 
 the bed of the river, &c., seeming to imply a grant of 
 such a fishery as conveyed some kind of ' interest in 
 the soil,' for which interest the appellants were pro- 
 perly rateable." 
 
 Rex V. North Curry (4 B. & C.) is another illus- 
 tration. There was a rate on an " occupier" for his 
 house ; also a rate for stock in trade ; and it appeared 
 that he carried on business there by a foreman, &c., 
 who lived there, but the appellant inhabited in ano- 
 ther parish. The rate on the stock was held bad, as 
 he was not a resident inhabitant. No attempt was 
 made to join the occupation and the profits under one 
 class of "beneficial occupation." 
 
 In Rex V. Eyre (12 East), Lord Ellenborough said, 
 " The appellant was rated merely as lessee of the 
 tolls, and for nothing else which might have given 
 them a corporeal quality." 
 
 In Rex V. Watson (5 East), Lord Ellenborough put 
 the question whether " it was an incorporeal heredita- 
 ment;" and 
 
 In Rex V. London (4 T. R.) Lord Kenyon said, 
 " It is not a rate on tolls, but the close of land called 
 ' the barge way and the toll gate.' The subject mat- 
 ter of the rate is real property : it is land, tenement, 
 or hereditament." 
 
 In Rex V. Welbank (4 M. & S.) the Court refused 
 tojoin"rent" with land as enhancing the value by 
 the annexation of the profit, and held that " you can- 
 not include something not liable per se with some- 
 thing that is liable to rate." 
 
 In the Liverpool News Exchange (1 Ad. & Ell. 
 1831), the Court (referring to several cases) said, 
 " These cases establish the principle that the advan- 
 tages attendant upon a building, either in respect of 
 the situation or the mode of its occupation, are to be 
 taken into the account in estimating its rateable an- 
 nual value, whenever those advantages would enable 
 the owner of the building to let it at a higher rent 
 than it would otherwise fetch, but not the profits of 
 a trade carried on in the building but not enhancing 
 its rent." 
 
 In Queen v. Guest (7 Ad. & Ell. 1838) the machi- 
 nery was attached to the land, and it was said, " Real 
 property ought to be rated according to its actual 
 value as combined with the machinery attached to it." 
 
 In the Monmouthshire Canal (3 Ad. & Ell.) Lord 
 Denman said, " As to the cases cited where they (the 
 Judges) say that the improved value is not to be taken 
 into the estimate, they do not refer to the improve- 
 ment in the value of the land as land, but to the im- 
 provement arising from its being used for the parti- 
 cular undertaking, and they decide against such im- 
 provement being liable to rate." Patteson, J., said, 
 " In almost all the cases cited, the question was, 
 whether in rating the premises the additional value 
 arising from the tolls was to be taken into considera- 
 tion." 
 
 All the cases underwent discussion and confirma- 
 tion in the cases of Chelsea Water Works (5 B. & 
 Ad.), Burn v. Wills (11 Ad. & Ell.), Queen v. Sawle 
 (ore, 1 1 Ad. & Ell.), Queen v. Capel (tithes, 12 Ad. 
 & Ell.) 
 
 Nor are these confirmations weakened by the re- 
 marks of some of the Judges (Mansfield in Rowles v. 
 Gells) that " the poor-rate is not a tax on the land 
 but a personal charge by reason of the annual profits 
 which the lessee of the Crown receives out of the 
 land, and which is not charged at all before to the 
 poor," [as personalty in rate on inhabitant]. That 
 (Holroyd in Calder Canal) "a rate on land is in effect 
 a rate on the profits of the land ; for where there are 
 no profits there is no beneficial occupation." 
 
 Nor the remarks in the Birmingham Gas (1837, 
 6 Ad. & Ell.), by Lord Denman, " such machinery 
 [fixed] constitutes a mode of occupying" [sole, and 
 profit incidental,] " that really is clear from the be- 
 ginning to the end of the cases." 
 
 In Bristol Poor v. Waite (5 Ad. & Ell. 1836), Lord 
 Denman said, " The phrase ' beneficial occupation' is 
 in frequent use, and it seems tolerably well to con- 
 vey rather a popular notion than to give a rule for 
 deciding the question of rateability in any case; if it 
 means profitable, or anything like it, the expression 
 is obviously fallacious. It would be nearer the truth 
 to say that the presumptive liability arising from 
 occupation is to be explained away in each case."
 
 9 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 These cases admit of considerable observation, but 
 it is sufficient for my purpose to have extracted so 
 much, and next to shew that the principle as to 
 realty is carried out and further illustrated by the 
 mode in which assessments on occupiers were 
 made, and the deductions allowed to them, as well 
 before as since the Parochial Assessment Act of 
 1836, which deductions were the expenses of cul- 
 tivation, preservation, &c., and an allowance for 
 tenants' profits, whilst in rating personalty allow- 
 ances were also made for debts, interest on capital, 
 &c., as will be seen when I consider the deductions 
 made to occupiers and those to railways. 
 
 I anticipate it will be said that nobody disputes 
 the principles laid down in those authorities, and 
 that there is no intention of subjecting the profits 
 of trade to rate in the rating of a railway. That 
 the mode of assessment adopted arrives at the same 
 result as these old authorities justify, and is but a 
 new mode of calculation, of ascertaining the rate- 
 able value of the realty since the Parochial Assess- 
 ment Act, and that the deductions made in that 
 new mode do exhaust all the profits of the trade 
 and personalty, and leave the value of the realty 
 (of the occupation to a tenant), which is thereby 
 ascertained ; that there is no other coarse open for 
 that purpose. 
 
 It may be convenient now to consider the two 
 decisions on railway liability, [the facts, arguments, 
 or judgments, in which the House of Commons' 
 late Committee with difficulty, and then only im- 
 perfectly, ascertained, and could not understand, 
 whilst it assumed the correctness of those deci- 
 sions,] in which Lord Denman established the new 
 principle and mode of computation as to occupiers 
 by associating the profits of the Company's carry- 
 ing trade (which until the Act of Victoria came 
 under the inhabitants' non-liability for personalty) 
 with the occupation of the realty. I shall advert 
 but briefly to them, and without repeating the ar- 
 guments so strongly put in the Railway Times of 
 November 4, 18, December 30, and May 25 last. 
 
 The first, the South-Western (Mitcheldever) 
 case, was decided in 1812 (1 Ad. and Ell. N.C.). 
 
 '< The question raised being," says Lord Denman, 
 " whether the Company, being in the occupation of 
 its own railway, and, in fact, in the exclusive occupa- 
 tion of it, and for the purposes of a large carrying 
 trade, the rateable value of such occupation is to be 
 taken only on the amount of certain tolls which have 
 been fixed under the Railway Act as payable gene- 
 rally by all carriers using the railway, or the general 
 amount of the profits which the Company, in fact, 
 receive from the occupation so devoted to trade, mak- 
 ing the proper deductions;" and the Court adopted 
 the latter mode. 
 
 But in that case it strangely appears that the 
 Company admitted themselves to be " exclusive 
 occupiers and users" of the railway, " exclusively 
 carrying on the trade, and the only persons who 
 used, or could practically use it and carry on the 
 trade" (so that the Court inferred that it was 
 attached and incidental to the bare occupation). 
 
 That a yearly tenant would take the Company'.s 
 general receipts for traffic, and would give a rent 
 proportioned thereon, and for the part of the line in 
 question. No specific distinction was made as to 
 taking the line without the Company's trade. A 
 mode of measuring the receipts and the rate by 
 the whole length of the line was admitted, which 
 removed another serious difficulty, and no separa- 
 tion was made of the receipts on each parish ; yet, 
 when the Court decided that the general receipts 
 and profits were liable, they said, that " that case 
 must be determined by its own state of facts, and 
 that when a different state of facts arose, the rate 
 must be altered to meet it ." That different state 
 of facts (being the use of the railway by others, the 
 receipt of tolls from them, and the same Company 
 using other lines) did arise in the Grand Junction 
 case, and there the Court held (see verbatim judg- 
 ment reported by the writer, Railway Times, 8th 
 June, ISM) beneficial occupation sufficient, and re- 
 tained the higher rate; and it was considered by 
 the Court, that by taking the gross receipts, and 
 then making deductions (besides the statutable 
 allowances) for tenants' profits, keeping up stock, 
 &c. &c., you would exhaust the profits of the trade 
 or personalty, and arrive at the " estimated net rent 
 which a yearly tenant would give," &c., for the 
 " hereditament" (for the Company's interest and 
 advantages). That calcu'ation is entirely based on 
 profits of trade, and must assume that the Com- 
 pany's trade is attached lo the realty, and that 
 nothing is to be deducted for custom, trade, &c., as 
 in the old cases on personalty. 
 
 Lord Denman assimilated the South-Western to 
 the cases of the Steel-yard, the Billiard table, and 
 the Canteen, and distinguished it from the Bridg- 
 water case ; but by reference to those cases it will 
 be seen how strongly the property savored of the 
 realty, and that not only the sole user of, but the 
 sole right to use, the machines, &c., were attached 
 to ihe house and inseparable from it, and would 
 necessarily be enjoyed with it by the occupier; the 
 canteen was attached by statute, and it was incident 
 to the occupation; so is toll, and that is for the 
 actual and immediate use of the land, so was the 
 news room. 
 
 I shall now quote a few sentences, shewing that 
 the limitation to realty has been overlooked by 
 Lord Denman in his judgment in the Grand Junc- 
 tion case. He said " it is the established principle 
 of law that the rate is to be on the occupier, in 
 respect of the " beneficial occupation," on how 
 much net profit an occupier may be expected to 
 realise;" [it is limited to the yearly worth of the 
 realty, as between landlord and tenant.] " Parish 
 officers are to look to the actual state and value of 
 the land in occupation." [This again is too wide 
 and indefinite.] " The Grand Junction case has 
 different facts, but those differences did not vary 
 the principle; each of the two Companies must be 
 rated in respect of the occupation ; — what is the 
 value of the occupation" [of the realty only] "from 
 whatever source derived?" " But if the ability to 
 carry on the [a] trade added to the value [rent] of 
 
 c
 
 10 
 
 the land, that value cannot be excluded, but it is 
 referable to trade ;" [not simple ability of person- 
 alty, but it must be profit of realty and its annexa- 
 tions ; the ability to carry on the whole trade of the 
 Company must be attached to the tenancy ; it is 
 the difference between a trade and the trade.] " Jt 
 is the actual occupation" [of the realty only] — 
 " the beneficial occupation, not the demise gives 
 the rate" — [but you must either abide by the 
 tenancy and estimated rent, prescribed by the sta- 
 tute or not ; if yon do, then you should suppose all 
 the facts in a tenancy.] " It is not to be imposed 
 in respect of the profits of trade, but it is to be im- 
 posed in respect of the value of the occupation," 
 [only in respect of the profits of the realty, so as to 
 exclude the trade which the phrase " value of occu- 
 pation" includes.] " 'Whatever causes increase the 
 rent also increase the rate," (only if attached to the 
 soil or tenancy.) Take the case of the owner and 
 occupier of a coach yard, or a profitless business, 
 how would you rate ? 
 
 Lord Denman assumes " the deductions exhaust 
 whatever is referable to trade" — (this is a little in- 
 consistent with preceding passages, and shews that 
 trade profits are included, for the purpose of ex- 
 haustion; then do they exhaust?) " If they do, 
 then the rate is fair." — "The case admits a tenant 
 would give the higher sum in question for the rail- 
 way and the corporeal hereditaments. Nothing 
 could be paid for good-will, as none is sold, and 
 the Company is not bound to surrender it. They 
 could carry on the business." (It is custom ; and 
 is that attached to the railway so as to form part of 
 the realty, a necessary and sole annexation to it 
 and the tenancy ?) " The tenancy is the only 
 mode of ascertaining the existing value of the oc- 
 cupation to the existing occupier. There is no te- 
 nancy, and no good-will is in fact made ;" (but the 
 calculation proceeds on the assumption of a te- 
 nancy, with the Company's trade.) " The landlord 
 underletting a room to a lodger having a profitable 
 trade, would not pay larger poor-rates unless he 
 look increased rent ;" (would he take more or less 
 rent on account of a larger or smaller profit by his 
 tenant or his trade and personalty?) 
 
 The Parochial Assessment Act points to the 
 " net rental" a tenant would give, and (like all the 
 cases) to the realty and its direct produce only, by 
 the words " hereditaments" and " rent," and does 
 not say " the sum or profits derived from the use of 
 land and trade thereon;" therefore, to bring the 
 case within the statutes^ it is necessary to xuppose 
 that the property is let. Consider what you can 
 let, as well as what let for, without the addition 
 of personalty, of custom, the rate being limited to 
 realty. 
 
 You cannot let or demise the right of using it, 
 but only the tolls, as trade on the railway can be 
 exercised by all the world; a tenant would take 
 under a demise, not the exclusive use of the rail- 
 way, nor the Company's trade, as a necessary an- 
 nexation, but only the perception of the tolls 
 thereon, and the rent would be something less than 
 the tolls, as allowances must be made (besides the 
 
 statutable deductions) for tenants' profits, &-c. ; and 
 then the Companies submit, that you have the net 
 annual value (rent) on which the rate ought to be 
 imposed. It is answered, that practically it never 
 can or will be let — that the public have no right to 
 the stations, &c. — that the Company could not let 
 all their powers and advantages — that their trade 
 is, in effect, attached to the occupation, and cannot 
 be severed from the railway, and the ownership and 
 occupier falling into the same hands, if only for a 
 portion of the entire concern, is sufficient to war- 
 rant the increased standard of rating — " that the 
 principle is, that it is the value of the land, how- 
 ever that value may be increased, the value in the 
 hands of the landlord, the sum a tenant would pay 
 for the use of the land and its advantages ; the 
 question is the application of that principle." — 
 (Kelly). But the stations must afford access to the 
 public to the railway, and you can erect other sta- 
 tions, the same as stage coach proprietors used to 
 have on the highways. Demise the railway with- 
 out the trade, the banking-house without the cus- 
 tomers, a stage-coach yard without the trade, the 
 tenant bringing his own, or the landlord carrying 
 on his, and paying toll to the tenant, what would a 
 tenant give? Denman says, " the Company would 
 still preserve their trade." If so, what would a 
 tenant give ? 
 
 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 
 shew, that you are paying in the supposed rent in 
 question for something more than t!;e mere rental 
 or profit of the land ? for trade and connection or 
 custom in addition ? Could you let it at the higher 
 assessment, without the connection or trade? Then 
 can the traffic receipts be considered as realty or 
 appurtenant to it ? Do you not obtain not merely 
 the value of the realty as such, but the adjunct of 
 the benefit of the Compauy's profits of trade — of 
 their peculiar and personal connection and custom 
 which enables them to earn so much more than any 
 ordinary carrier on the same line would gain when 
 he came into a simple occupation? 
 
 A tenant would only pay rent on the toll calcu- 
 lation, tmless he had the trade, and then he would 
 pay a larger sum, either in gross or yearly ; there- 
 fore the computation assumes, that the Company's 
 trade and connections are so attached to the rail- 
 way that any other occupier would necessarily and 
 exclusively take that trade with the hire oi use of 
 " the railway." The sum based on the gross re- 
 ceipts and admitted as rent is not rent, but is a sum 
 given for the land and the Company's trade. The 
 true question is, what is the rent (a word exclu- 
 sively savoring of realty) carrying on any business, 
 and not to carry on the whole business of the Com- 
 pany treated as an annexation. As to assimilating 
 the profits of the railway to the profits of the can- 
 teen, the billiard table, steel- yard, &c., and to the 
 higher " rent" which those promises let at, with 
 those inseparable annexations exclusively enjoyed
 
 11 
 
 by the occupier, the rent there is for the business 
 necessarily and exclusively attached to the house, 
 without reference to the occupier's own customers 
 in addition ; but you treat the trade of the railway 
 which earns the profit as exclusively passing to a 
 tenant, or as a like annexation to the realty. That 
 is the fallacy — the general receipts of a Railway 
 Company are not the direct produce of the land, 
 nor do they arise out of the hereditament, they are 
 the produce of personal property running on a 
 public road, and increased by the application of 
 connection and trade, the same as the old stage- 
 coaches ; the general receipts are not for the direct 
 and mere use of the land, but for the carriage of 
 personalty in personalty, and are two degrees re- 
 moved from the realty. 
 
 Even the junction of locomotive and other per- 
 sonal property with the land does not (as in the 
 case of agricultural implements) produce a realty 
 profit, a third contributor has to be introduced, 
 namely, passengers or goods, for carriage, like 
 freight in a ship or on a canal ; this assessment, 
 therefore, is a rate not on the natural production of 
 the soil, nor to work out the produce of the soil, as 
 in the case of arable land, but on the artificial pro- 
 duction (if it be produce at all) with the adjunct of 
 independent personal property, on locomotion, on 
 freight; the earnings of stage coaches running on 
 the proprietor's own yard, were never included 
 under colour of being an occupation of land. Take 
 a house tenanted by a bankers, their profits are de- 
 rived, not from the soil, or from being attached, but 
 irom their own connections ; the " estimated ren- 
 tal" of their house is not to be computed by what 
 another tenant would give carrying on the same 
 business and obtaining the same profit (less an 
 allowance for tenant's profits), but as the ordinary 
 rental as a house, or as a banking house, without 
 reference to the amount of profit made by a tenant, 
 though it might let at a higher sum for one trade 
 than for another; the next tenant inight not have 
 the same amount of business, yet you rate the pre- 
 sent tenant for the value of the connections pur- 
 chased by him (as is the case with railways) of 
 other and competing traders, and not necessarily 
 attached to the soil or incident to the occupation ; 
 if the Companies published no accounts, where 
 would be the difference between them and a private 
 trader? The occupation solely affects the trading 
 profits, the letting value is a subject of independent 
 definition. If occupancy renders profits liable to 
 rate, then the assessment is improperly depreciated 
 by the property being let, if rental be the true prin- 
 ciple, then it should be assumed without reference 
 to the quality of the tenant. If the whole benefit 
 of the occupancy is to be the guide, does mere toll 
 or mere rental correctly give it in any case ? — You 
 say you arrive at the rent by exhaustion of the 
 trade profits; that equally supposes the trade of 
 the Company is attached to " the railway," and 
 would pass to a tenant; it is a rate on what business 
 you may do, not on what you have done, as in tolls 
 on canals. The Company have obtained a trade or 
 private custom, and they could (as Denman said) 
 
 " carry it on, they need not surrender it." The 
 additional deductions for " tenants' profits" does 
 not exhaust their trade profits, because a lessee 
 would have to pay for their trade or goodwill, 
 which you assume would be included in the "rental." 
 But it is said that there was no other mode of 
 rating railways ; that if this mode be incorrect none 
 other could be adopted, and railways would escape 
 altogether. If that were unfail accompli I do not 
 think it would be very unjust or over liberal, seeing 
 that railways are acknowledged by statutes to be 
 "great public benefits," and (in the words of the 
 Judges in the Canal cases) " might well be ex- 
 empted ;" but for the event of there being no toll 
 de /ado, the Legislature provided expressly its 
 equivalent for the purpose of rating, and Lord 
 Denman says " the framers of the railway statute 
 no doubt intended to limit the rate to the tolls 
 alone, by the clause to keep an estimated toll ;" 
 but that is not the only meaning ; the Legisla- 
 ture also intended to say, that as tolls only were 
 liable to rate, as appertaining to the realty, and as 
 no tolls might, by reason of the Company's doing 
 all the trade, be received on the railway, therefore 
 they should pay on an estimated toll, and not 
 escape altogether from rate by not taking toll — 
 thus also keeping in view the distinction between 
 " realty with occupation," and " personalty on in- 
 habitants," and the sole liability of the former for 
 rate in respect of " occupation." 
 
 It has provided for the measure of the realty by 
 the supposed tolls ; but Lord Denman says that 
 "as no words of restiiction of the common law 
 liability are used we cannot excuse from rate," the 
 difi'erence between the rent for a lease of " the rail- 
 way," (as shewn by the tolls,) and the admitted 
 [rent or] sum for a lease of the realty, joined with 
 the Company's trade, connections, &c. not neces- 
 sarily attached to the soil, (which is shewn by the 
 gross receipts, less the statutable and other deduc- 
 tions referable to trade or personalty.) Suppose 
 the Company simply let the railway, and sepa- 
 rately sold or let their customers ? that tests the an* 
 nexation ; but many other illustrations of the argu- 
 ment might be adduced, shewing that toll and not 
 gross receipts give the proper liability for rating ; 
 that the trade profits are not exhausted in this new- 
 mode of calculation, which, whilst it includes per- 
 sonalty on the one hand, does not give the benefit 
 of personalty deductions on the other, as I shall 
 proceed to shew. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 COMPUTATIONS AND DEDUCTIONS. 
 
 The computations and deductions for the purpose of 
 ascertaining the amount of rateability, were always 
 governed by either the actual rack-rent where the 
 property was in the hands of a lessee, or an " esti- 
 mated rent" where it was in the owner's occupation. 
 From the first there was only to be deducted the 
 statutable allowances, and the remainder gave the
 
 12 
 
 assessable value ; but in the second rase certain 
 deductions bad to be first made, in order to arrive 
 at the supposed rent, and from that the statutable 
 deductions had next to be made; and this distinc- 
 tion it is important to bear in mind. The prin- 
 ciples of the computations will be gleaned from the 
 following cases : — 
 
 Rex V. Joddrell (1 B and Ad. 1831), where the 
 liability of farmers (as well as in R. v. Brown 8, 
 East) was much discussed, Bayley, J., said, " Here the 
 farmers were rated at the bona fide amount of the rack- 
 rent at which the farms were letting, or which they 
 were worth to let, the tenants paying the compensa- 
 tion for tithe, and the Rector contended that they 
 ought to be rated in addition upon that compensation 
 and upon their share of profit beyond the rent. Tlic 
 great point to be aimed at in every rate is equality. 
 In the case of land, the rateable value is the amount 
 of the annual average profit, or value of the land, 
 after every outgoing is paid, and every proper allow- 
 ance made, not however including the interest of 
 capital as the sessions have done, for that is a part of 
 the profit;" and Parke, J., " Of the whole of the 
 annual profits or value of land, a part belongs to the 
 landlord in the shape of rent, and part to the tenant, 
 and whenever a rate is according to the rack-rent 
 (the usual and most convenient mode), it is in effect 
 a rate on a part of the profit only." 
 
 Rex. V. Chaplin (1 B. and Ad., 1831) was a rate as 
 occupiers of land for a towing path in its improved 
 value. Lord Tenterden said, " in the cases of this 
 kind, which have hitherto occured, thecanal has been 
 in the hands of the original proprietors, and the ob- 
 ject has been to ascertain what it would be wortli to 
 let, which has sometimes been difficult, but here the 
 canal is actually let and no occasion to speculate on 
 the point." Taunton, J., said, "the tolls of a canal 
 like the profits of land are to be valued at what they 
 would let for, communibus annis. In ascertaining what 
 a property is worth to let, the best criterion in general 
 is what it actually does let for ; " and Patteson, J., 
 said, " where the land is not actually lei it becomes 
 necessary to calculate what a tenant would pay for it, 
 where it is let the actual rent is the criterion, unless it 
 tan be clearly shown that that is too small." 
 
 In King v. Adams (4 B. and Ad., 1832) the de- 
 fendant was owner and occupier, Parke, J., said, 
 " now it is quite clear the rate ought not to be made 
 according to the profit derived by the occupier him- 
 self, for if that were so the rate must vary according 
 to the nature of the occupier's interest. An occupier 
 who is tenant at will at rack rent, and therefore re- 
 ceives a less share of the profits of the land than one 
 who is tenant for years at a small rent, and still less than 
 one who is a tenant in fee simple and pays none at all 
 would be rateable at a less sum, a proposition which was 
 never yet contended for. Again, it is quite clear 
 that though the occupier is the person who nomi- 
 nally pays the tax, it is in reality paid by the 
 beneficial owner, and is a charge upon the land. 
 In order to make an equal rate, the nature of the 
 occupier's interest must be disregarded and the 
 rate imposed according to some value of the sub- 
 ject of occupation; usage and convenience have estab- 
 lished this value to be not that of the estate or pro- 
 perty itself, but that of the profit which is or might 
 be made from the estate or property; the rule has 
 been to assess according to the annual profit of the 
 land, or where the produce is not matured in one 
 
 year then upon an average of years, from which 
 profit deductions are allowed for all the expenses ne- 
 cessary to its production. Further, if the subject of 
 occupation be of a perishable nature or require an- 
 nual expense to secure its existence, an allowance 
 ought to be made on this account, for the total an- 
 nual profit is not the net annual profit ; a part must 
 be set aside for the restoration and maintenance of 
 the subject of occupation. It is on this principle that 
 buildings have been permitted to be rated at less in 
 proportion than arable and other land. "The cases, 
 more especially those of a more recent date, in which 
 the principle of rating has been more fully discussed 
 and considered, will be found to have established 
 this rule of rating, which is, in other words, that 
 all lands are to be assessed in proportion to the net 
 rent which a tenant at rack-rent would pay, he dis- 
 charging all rates, charges, and outgoings." 
 
 In Rex V. Cambridge Gas. (8 Ad.& Eli. 1838.)— 
 The Company claimed to deduct an annual sum for 
 tenants' profit, which was in effect a claim to be as- 
 sessed on the rack-rent only — as to which Lord Den- 
 man says, — " This claim it is presumed has arisen 
 from the fact stated, that profits in trade are not as- 
 sessed in any parish in Cambridge. Nor are they 
 in this instance. The ' rent which it is found' a te- 
 nant would give by the year, after certain deductions, 
 is not the amount of profits : those necessarily are 
 something independent of and beyond the ' rent,' 
 upon which the person taking the apparatus must 
 calculate or nobody would become tenant at all ; they 
 are therefore perfectly distinct. The rent which a tenant 
 would give for lands after certain deductions (which is 
 the criterion for the due assessment of it) is one outgo- 
 ing, the expense of cultivating another, and all beyond 
 whatever that may be obviously comes under the de- 
 nomination of profits. Since, therefore, the ' profits' 
 are in their nature wholly distinct from the ' rent,' 
 and are not only not a deduction from it, but the re- 
 verse, something beyond and in addition to it, we 
 cannot perceive that this claim rests upon any just 
 principle, and are of opinion that it has been pro- 
 perly disallowed." This shews that the lands in the 
 parish were not assessed at rack rent only ; other- 
 wise the Court would, npon their own reasoning, 
 have allowed the tenant's profits to the Company, 
 and it shews further that the tenant's profits do not 
 stand upon the same footing as the profits of trade. 
 There the case found that the property " would let 
 to a tenant at a yearly rent of 2,400/.," including 
 350/. for the repairs, which the Company also claimed 
 to deduct. 
 
 In Queen v. Capel (12 A. and £., 1840) appeal by 
 Vicar against a rate on tythc, after the Parochial As- 
 sessment Act, it was argued (against the rate) that 
 independent of the Parochial Assessment Act, the 
 rack rent which could be got for the land if a new 
 tenant were to come in is the proper value on which 
 a landholder is to be taxed as occupier. That is 
 the principle of Rex v. Granville, Rex v. Attwood, 
 (6 B. and C.) and Rex v. St. Nicholas. The remain- 
 ing produce or profit is also a fit subject of rate 
 where parties are rated merely as inhabitants ; for 
 then the means of all kinds are to be rated, including 
 personalty. The only reasonable principle, therefore, 
 upon which landholders can be assessed as occupiers 
 is to take the competition or rack rent of the land for 
 the time being. The other profits fall within the 
 principle explained by Lord Tenterden in Rex v. th« 
 Birmingham Gas Company, they '• are obtained by
 
 13 
 
 applying the skill and industry of man to capital 
 brought from a distance for that purpose, and are 
 not rateable in a rate in respect of occupation of 
 lands." This will be found the general result of the 
 authorities ; it does not follow that the rack rent does 
 not represent the full net annual profits of occupation, 
 though there are also profits which countervail the 
 interest of capital, compensation for labour, and ex- 
 penses. But these latter are not (within the statute 
 of 43rd Eliz.) profits of occupation. The profit on 
 tenant's capital and labour never can (as was shown) 
 bear a fixed ratio to the rent. Lord Denman decided 
 in favour of the rate ; and, going fully into the sub- 
 ject, observed, " that if the landlord held the farm 
 in his own hands, the annual value would consist of 
 the amount of the rent for which it might be let, with 
 the addition of the tenant's profits, he would have 
 nothing to deduct but the ordinary outgoings and his 
 bailiff's wages," &c. 
 
 Coming more to the detail of the deductions, in 
 Rex V. St. Nicholas, Lord Mansfield said, " A liberal 
 allowance ought to be made for wear and tear, labour, 
 and attendance." 
 
 In Rex V. Oxford Canal, (10 B. & C, 1830) Bayley, 
 J., said, " There can be no doubt the poor rate, the 
 annual repairs, and the expense of collecting the tolls, 
 must be allowed, the sum which remains after making 
 such deductions constitutes the net profit." And 
 Parke, J., added, " In strictness all the profits ought 
 to be rated, but inasmuch as tenants profits in respect 
 of other lands in the parish are not rated, the tenants 
 profit in respect of land occupied by the Canal Com- 
 pany ought not to be rated." This was very shortly 
 before the decision of Rex v. Joddrell, and before the 
 personalty exemption Act of Victoria. 
 
 In Lower Mitten (9 B. & C.) Bayley, J., said, " The 
 sessions must rate the Company according to the 
 annual profit or value which the subject of occupation 
 within the parish produces. This in general would 
 be properly estimated at the rent which a tenant 
 would give he paying the rates and repairs and the 
 other annual expenses necessary for making the sub- 
 ject of occupation productive, and a further deduction 
 from that rent where the subject is of a perishable 
 nature towards renewing or reproducing it. This is 
 the rule laid down in Bridgewater and Tomlinson." 
 
 In the Liverpool Exchange (1 Ad. & Ell.) the 
 Company were held liable only for the profits, but not 
 the value of the privileges of those proprietors who 
 attend the room and receive yearly sums, and not in 
 respect of their annual divisible profits derived from 
 the room according to the sum for which it would let 
 with the attendant revenue from proprietors. 
 
 In Rex V. Bridgewater Canal, the Company carried 
 goods for freight, and were held liable only for toll 
 thereon, and that in the same proportions as lands. 
 The Court, instead of examining into the average pro- 
 portion of the farmer's profits to the rent, sent the 
 case to the Sessions to enquire what the canal would 
 let for to a tenant who had to pay all expenses (not 
 taking gross receipts or annual value.) 
 
 In King v. Attwood (6 B. & C, 1827) the lessee of 
 a coal mine, and another case an owner, claimed de- 
 ductions for planting the mine and setting it to work, 
 but they were held not entitled to them, the outlay 
 being assimilated to the expense of building a house 
 or improving a farm, but a tenant's profit was to be 
 allowed to the owner. 
 
 King V. Chaplin, (1 B. & Ad.) the only case of a 
 demise to the appellants of tolls subject to pay in- 
 
 terest on a mortgage debt borrowed to make the 
 canal, deduction was claimed for that; 10 per cent. 
 was allowed as reasonable profit to a tenant to oc- 
 cupy. Also the annual expense of repairs and taxes. 
 Lord Tenterden said, " The interest is so much rent ; 
 they are lessees undertaking to pay the interest as so 
 much rent. There is no ground for saying that the 
 interest is not such a sum as may be properly con- 
 sidered the value of the navigation," and liable to 
 rate. Taunton, J., " it is however in the nature of 
 rent. Instead of the lessees paying it to the proprie- 
 tors, and their handing it over to the mortgagee, the 
 lessee pays it to the mortgagee at once." And a si- 
 milar principle was laid down in the Blackfriars 
 Bridge case, 1839, (9 Ad. & E.) 
 
 King V. Tombleson (9 B. & C.) was a question 
 as to rating coal mines in the same proportion 
 (two-thirds) as other occupiers, or allowing more 
 deduction, Bayley, J., said, " The rate is to be made 
 on the occupier according to the annual profit or 
 value which the subject of occupation produces, and 
 it makes no difference in the amount of the rate 
 whether the occupier be tenant or owner, some portion 
 of the rent ought to be set apart to form a fund for 
 repairing." The session mean by the words "net 
 rent," "only that part of (he rent which goes into 
 the pocket of the landlord, and which is the rent 
 paid by the tenant after deducting taxes and collec- 
 tion. If the rate had been according to diffeient 
 proportions of the clear annual profit or value of the 
 subject of occupation, it would have been otherwise, 
 but annual rent is not annual profit or value. And 
 as the case finds 10 per cent, is a reasonable deduc- 
 tion for tenants profits it must be made in order to 
 equalise the rate." 
 
 In Rex V. Woking (4 Ad. & Ell.), the gross re- 
 ceipts were taken on the one hand, and the gross ex- 
 penditure on the other, and apportioned to the pa- 
 rishes. The Company claimed deductions — 1st, 
 10 per cent, on the net profits (admitted to be a rea- 
 sonable deduction) from the net income for tenants 
 profits. 2nd. Compensation to landowners out of the 
 profits (toll) like the tolls in Aire and Calder case. 
 The cost of repair must be excluded (Kingswinford, 
 7 B. & C), and according to Oxford Canal case, 10 
 per cent, admitted to be reasonable for tenants pro- 
 fits. Also allowed in Joddrell's case. The parish 
 admitted the expense of repairs. 
 
 Denman, Lord, " The necessary expenses and re- 
 pairs must of course be deducted. The compensa- 
 tions are payable out of the profits of the canal, and 
 are in truth nothing more than rent charges, they do 
 not affect the value of the occupation or the rent 
 which a tenant would give, but only show amongst 
 whom and in what manner the rent or profits are to 
 be divided." His Lordship took the gross receipts 
 deducted for repairs and expenses, excluding com- 
 pensation, and from the balance " must be deducted 
 10 per cent, for tenants' profits, according to the rule 
 laid down in the Bridgewater case." 
 
 The Parochial Assessment Act passed in 1836, 
 enacted that the assessment should be upon tiie 
 net annual value, or estimated rent, after certain 
 deductions, and a question was raised whether that 
 Act exempted personal property. 
 
 In the Queen v. Lumsdain (10 Ad. & Ell. 1839), a 
 rate omitting stock in trade, was objected to. Lord 
 Denman said, " it is not improbable that the legisla- 
 ture intended to alter the law upon the subject of
 
 14 
 
 rating personal properly, but I am clearly of opinion 
 that the intention has not been carried into effect ; 
 the object of the Act does not appear to have been to 
 introduce any new principle of rating, but to affirm 
 that which has been already established by decisions 
 of the CourU" 
 
 The Act of 3rd and 4th Victoria, exempting in- 
 habitants from liability for personalty, and leaving 
 only "occupiers," did not pass till after the de- 
 cision of these cases, and after the South-Western 
 Railway case. 
 
 These cases amply establish that deductions or 
 allowances from the gross rent, have always been 
 admitted for cost of production, preservation of 
 the property to produce the admitted gross rent, 
 rates, taxes, insurance, and other outgoings speci- 
 fied in the statute, &c. That when there was no 
 lessee a further deduction was made for tenants pro- 
 fits in order to arrive at the supposed rent. 
 
 In all the cases the sum on which the rate 
 was imposed has been admitted to he the eitimated 
 rent which a tenant would give to take the properly, 
 and those tenants profits admitted to be a fair 
 tenants profits, so that the question litigated has 
 generally been one of liability only and not of quan- 
 tum. 
 
 The figures in the South-Western case (as to 
 which much ignorance was shown before the Rail- 
 way Committee) were thus : the line was 77 miles 
 in length, 4^ miles of which ran through ^litchel- 
 dever ; the estimated tolls for which would have 
 been 3,4 70/.; the total receipts (including that 
 amount) 13,880/.; 1,293/. was the estimated rent 
 a tenant of the tolls would give. The parish sub- 
 mitted that a lessee of the line with its advantages 
 would give a rent of 70,000/. for the whole line, 
 giving a proportion for this parish of 4,320/. 
 
 These figures are very ably discussed in the 
 Railway Times of 8th June last. The deductions 
 made by the parish were G9 per cent, upon the 
 gross receipts ; the Company claimed 63 per cent, 
 npon the toll, and the difference of rate stood thus : 
 if the parish were right, the rate was to be on 
 2,800/.; if the Company, then on 1,400/.; and 
 the Court upheld the parish assessment. 
 
 This was in 1839, when parishes were endea- 
 vouring to uphold the toll computation, and were 
 contented with it ; but the decision led to the gene- 
 ral increase of rating on the receipts. These figures 
 afford some idea of the general and oppressive 
 Dature of the assessments on railways, and in the 
 evidence (Railway Committee 475) it is stated that 
 tolls amount to as much as one-third of the gross 
 receipts, that the railway pays nearly half of the 
 rates in Mitcheldever, that there are 10,000 to 
 12,000 acres in the parish, and that the line occu- 
 pies 20 acres, and pays half of the whole rates ! ! 
 
 In the Grand Junction case (3 Ad. & Ell. Ns. 1844) 
 the Company took the gross toll for a mile of the 
 particular parish. They sought to deduct therefrom 
 20 per cent, for tenants' profits, subsistence, &c., 
 2§ for collection of tolls, 35fd. for maintenance 
 of way, 4i per cent, rates, tithes, &c., 2 per cent, 
 renewing and reproducing, bringing down the net 
 
 rateable value (on toll calculation) to 712/. lOs. per 
 mile. But the Court rejected the toll principle 
 and upheld the rate on the gross receipts, and the 
 parish calculations and deductions, which stood 
 thus ■• — Total gross receipts and profit, 440,000/. ; 
 deductions, 5 per cent, for interest on capital of 
 255,000/. invested in moveable carrying stock, &c.; 
 20 per cent, on same sum for tenants' profits and 
 subsistence; 12^ percent, on same for depreciation 
 of stock. The total working expenses 198,000/. 
 Also 30/. per mile for renewing or reproducing, and 
 the rent or value of the stations separately as- 
 sessed. These deductions amounted to 306,000/., 
 leaving 133,000/. as the net annual value of tha 
 whole railway, or 1,050/. per mile. There, too, 
 the sessions found, and the case admitted that " a 
 tenant would give that rent for the Company's he- 
 reditaments with the stations, and being as- 
 sumed to have the Company's power of using the 
 railway," &c. 
 
 The deduction of 20 per cent, for tenants' profits 
 was not disputed by the parties ; the Company 
 sought an allowance for goodwill ; but the Court 
 rested on the rent found by the sessions, and denied 
 that there was any goodwill. 
 
 The Liverpool and Manchester Railway (in 7?a«7- 
 u-ai/ 7'imes, Nov. 11, 1843) appealed tothe sessions 
 against a rate. The parish had taken the gross 
 receipts and deducted working expenses, depre- 
 ciation, rent of buildings, 20 per cent, upon the 
 net profits, &c. The Company sought larger 
 deductions, and 20 per cent, on gross receipts, but 
 the sessions refused them. 
 
 The Brighton Company {Railway Times, April 13, 
 1844) appealed. The parish had allowed 5 per cent, 
 on gross receipts for tenants' profits, 2 per cent, for 
 depreciation, and the actual expenses, &c. The Com- 
 pany claimed to deduct rents of premises, larger 
 depreciations, wear and tear, &c., 10 per cent, on 
 cost of moveable stock for profit as carriers, besides 
 20 per cent, on the estimated rent the railway 
 would let for for tenants' profits. Those deductions 
 would have brought the rate from 800/. a mile to 
 376/., from which was to be deducted the enormous 
 sum of 5s. 8d. in the pound for other rates. But 
 the sessions confirmed the parish computation — 
 thus assuming that for 8,000/. a year a tenant would 
 risk 145,000/, in carrying stock alone. I think 
 it will be found that instead of 5 per cent, on gross 
 receipts it is better to take 10 per cent, on tenants' 
 
 capital. 
 
 The Great Western Railway and Tilehurst is an 
 appeal now before the Court of Queen's Bench, and 
 the following are the figures which involve a new 
 mode of deduction. The railway is 2.,V "^''^^ ''^ 
 the parish, and contains 30 acres. The parish take 
 the gross receipts, and allowed 38 j per cent, of gross 
 receipts for working expenses, and 20 per cent for 
 interest on cost of or capital invested in plant, &c., 
 (being 5 per cent, on it in its present condition, 10 
 per cent, profits on that capital and risk, and 5 per 
 cent, depreciation of plant, different from the ordi - 
 nary sum for repairs, for its restoration). This calcu- 
 lation made 1,200/. per mile. 
 
 The Company reduced it to 570/. assessable value 
 
 I
 
 15 
 
 by their mode. They took the actual gross receipts 
 for each mile of this parish at 3,700/. They deducted 
 therefrom " allowance for losses by bad debts, lessees 
 profits, &c., 20 per cent." being 740^. The next head 
 of deduction was " expenses to obtain and carry on 
 the trade," comprising 1st, " capital in engines, car- 
 riages, &c. ;" 2nd, " stations, buildings, &c. ;" 3rd, 
 " engine house, tools, and machinery;" 4th, "other 
 outlay, (excluding cost of land, permanent way, &c.)" 
 consisting of" expenses incurred in forming the Com- 
 pany, raising the capital and expenses, obtaining the 
 Act, &c." Those four items amounted to If millions 
 (being the actual outlay before and since the Com- 
 pany was formed), and the Company deducts the " in- 
 terest" thereon at 5 per cent., amounting to 86,950/. 
 5th, " wear and tear, and depreciation of the railway 
 itself, supposed to last 50 years," giving " annual de- 
 duction of 22,400^. (at 2 per cent, on the cost 1^ mil- 
 lions)." The next head of deduction was the " ex- 
 penses in cash disbursements," comprising, 6th, "lo- 
 comotive power, salaries, coaching expenses ; " 7th, 
 " income tax ; " 8th, loss by rent of branch lines ; 9th, 
 additional parochial assessments outstanding or de- 
 layed in 1843, amounting together to 307,740/. These 
 three total sums distributed over 175 miles, gave a 
 further deduction of 2,383'. per mile, and reduced the 
 assessment to 576/. 
 
 The parish contended against that computation, 
 that a demise to a tenant is calculated on the prin- 
 ciple of a rack rent, the test adopted by the Paro- 
 chial Assessment Act, and (according to Reg. v. 
 Capel) represents the fair annual profit of the oc- 
 cupation — that " permanent imjirovement falls into 
 rack rent, and the question is, what would a tenant 
 give bjyond the outgoings? (according to 1 T, R., 
 6 and 9 B. and C.) That the rack rent is the con- 
 sideration which it is worth while to give, (Capel) 
 it does not include tenant's profits (Woking and 
 Joddrell's cases) which are independent of rent, 
 (Cambridge) and beyond and in addition, and are 
 to be calculated by per centage on the capital re- 
 quired to carry on the traffic. I suppose tliey will 
 say, that the improved rent makes up for the out- 
 lay and improvements which are permanent, and 
 cannot be separated from the land. 
 
 The supposition that any tenant could be found 
 to take the line unless you included the Company's 
 carrying trade, or gave a non-competing engage- 
 ment, is absurd ; so are the admissions made in 
 the several cases tliat any one could be found to 
 rent the line, or sink the capital for the small sum 
 allowed for profits in the parish calculations ; and 
 I hope the next case broup:ht before the Court will 
 mark more distinctly different calculations on the 
 various views which I submit this question pre- 
 sents, and exhibit the fallacy of the supposed rent, 
 and of the admissions on the cases presented, as I 
 have before suggested. 
 
 Should these additional deductions be established 
 they will materially reduce the oppression of the pre- 
 sent principle of assessment ; and it seems but 
 fair that if the trade receipts are to be included in 
 the calculation, that the cost of obtaining and pro- 
 ducing that trade and receipt are to be deducted. 
 
 This computation still excludes the deductions 
 allowed in rating inhabitants for personal property, 
 
 which is another mode worthy of consideration ; 
 for were the Courts wholly to adopt the old per- 
 sonal property rating principle (instead of partially 
 for the benefit of one side, by taking the piofits 
 and not allowing the deductions) there would be 
 some equity in such assessment. 
 
 In the cases of inhabitants wherever stock in 
 trade was rated, an allowance (beyond the usual 
 allowances) was also made for the debts owing, for 
 the capital invested in the trade, &c. Still it was 
 (in the words of the Poor Law Commissioners) 
 found " so difficult, inquisitional, and uncertain to 
 carry out the statute, as to liability for profits of 
 trade, that with almost universal consent parishes 
 omitted the rating of the profits of trade." How- 
 ever, in 1839, the case of Queen against Lums- 
 dain decided, that a rate was bad which did not 
 include them. That led to the passing of the sta- 
 tute of Victoria, and the only persons now left for 
 assessment are occupiers in respect of land, and its 
 produce or profits as before set forth. 
 
 In Rex V. Shalfleet (2 Burrows) Lord Mansfield 
 said, " Personal property is the surplus of a man's 
 estate and effects, after payment of debts, the main- 
 tenance of his family, and necessary expenses." 
 
 Rex. V. White (4 T. R.) Lord Kenyon mentioned 
 a remark of Yates, J., in 1769, in Burrows, " That if 
 personal property be rated, it is not to be done at 
 random, and to leave the party rated to get off as he 
 can, but the officer making the rate must be able to 
 support what he has done by evidence, and no per- 
 sonal property can be rated, but the clear liquidated 
 surplus after paying all his debts." 
 
 Rex. V. Dursley (6 T. R.). Lord Kenyon said, 
 " They appeared, indeed, in the possession of stock 
 in trade, but the sessions have not stated whether 
 or not this property belonged to the several persons 
 whom the appellant wished to include in the rate, or 
 if it did, whether or not it produced profit, or whe- 
 ther or not it was liable to incumbrances equal to the 
 value of the property itself, and he might deduct 
 the interest of borrowed capital, that being in the 
 nature of an incumbrance upon his goods." The ap- 
 plication of this principle would make a material dif- 
 ference in the rating of railways. 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 STATISTICS OF RATES, ETC. 
 
 I WILL now proceed to illustrate the operation of 
 these constructions of the liability of railways, and the 
 oppressive and unequal nature of the contribution 
 which they make to the local taxation of the country. 
 I shall show the amounts contributed by land, in com- 
 parison with those contributed by railways, but I shall 
 not be minutely precise as to figures, as average totals 
 will be sufficient to give a general idea on the subject. 
 " The most important of all the local rates is the poor 
 rate, it is the largest in amount, and forms the basis 
 of all the other rates. It is imposed on the occupier 
 on the net yearly value of his occupation, which is the 
 rent, less certain deductions which lessen it more than 
 one-third." This is admitted by the Local Taxation 
 Report, which says that there is (at common law and 
 by statutes) authority to levy and apply 24 different 
 rates for 200 local puposes (besides those authorised 
 by local and special acts and customs) and amounting
 
 16 
 
 in the whole to 12,000,000/. yearly for England and 
 Wales, independent of the state taxes. It is admitted 
 (»ee Local Taxation Report) that the poor rate assess- 
 ment was found the easiest standard for local taxation> 
 and was extended during its first century to two of 
 the most important of other rates (the constables and 
 the county rates), and in the last 30 years it was ex- 
 tended by Parliament to 11 other rates, and it is un- 
 authorisedly extended to all otlier local rates, it 
 also forms a guide (though not the legal basis) to the 
 tithes, church, and sewers rates, the land and income 
 taxes, and, in some cases, to the state taxes. Indeed 
 there are only two other assessments, those for the 
 county and sewers rates, and they are on similar esti- 
 mates. Great as are (continues the Report) the 
 differences in law, they are all neglected more or less 
 in practice; the church rate is almost always imposed 
 as the poor rate ; the sewer rate frequently so. The 
 ■whole of our local taxation is imposed cither by law or 
 by usage regardless of law, on the same basis as the 
 poor rate. Great temptation and opportunities for 
 abuse which exist, cannot exist without a great amount 
 of illegality and extravagance, besides the general 
 adoption without authority, and indeed in defiance of 
 the law, of the poor rate assessment as the substitute 
 or model and standard for the other local taxes. 
 
 By the Poor Law Commissioners Ninth Report and 
 Appendix it appears, that in 1842 the total amount 
 raised for the relief of the poor in England was 
 6,397,947/. ; and for Wales, 356,457/., making a total of 
 6,754,404/. or (Local Taxation Report) 2s. 4d. in the 
 pound, on the assessed value of real property, and in- 
 cluding the county rate for England of 957,808/., and 
 for Wales of 45,843/., being about 5d. in the pound 
 on that assessed value hereafter stated. 
 
 The highway rate I find to vary from 4d. to Is. in 
 the pound, and sometimes there are two rates a year. 
 The Local Taxation Appendix states the amount 
 expended for England at 1,127,514/., and for Wales 
 at 42,377/., or about 4^d. in the pound more on the 
 said real value. 
 
 The church rate I find to vary from 2d. to 9d. in the 
 pound, and in some places there are two in a year. 
 The Local Taxation Report states the amount levied 
 for 1842 at only 492,483/. for England, and about 
 14,329/. for Wales, or about 2d. in the pound more. 
 
 By the "real property" return (1842) it appears 
 that " the annual value of real property assessed" to 
 poor rates was in England (including lands at 
 30,448,991/.), a total of 59,685,412/., on an area in 
 English statute acres of 313 millions, being an an- 
 nual value of 19s. 2d. per acre, and for Wales (in- 
 cluding land at 2,206,140/.), 2,854 618/., or 9s. 3d. each 
 acre, and making a total for England and Wales of 
 62i millions sterling value ; upon which these 
 four rates (the poor, county, highway, and church) 
 were levied, and the yearly amount contributed by 
 England was about 7f millions, and by Wales about 
 half a million ; to which have to be added the sums 
 levied by local authorities, and which (Report on 
 Local Taxation) brought up " the total levy for local 
 taxation to 12 millions sterling yearly," or about Iff 
 millions for England and about U for Wales, inde- 
 pendent of tithes estimated at 3J to 5 millions ster- 
 ling, and land tax now only 1| millions, and assessed 
 sewers, income, and other taxes omitted from these 
 calculations. 
 
 Of this total levy of lOf millions for England, 52 
 per cent., or about 6 millions was levied on 3O5 mil- 
 lions net value of land in England, and which (ac- 
 
 cording to Porter, M'Culloch and others), consisted 
 of 25i millions of acres of cultivated land, 3} millions 
 ofacres capable of cultivation (besides waste), or about 
 4s. an acre a year on land for these four rates, at an 
 average rental and net rateable value of 15s. to 20s. 
 an acre (independent of the other taxes as before 
 stated.) And it is to be observed that lands are usually 
 rated (assessed) at about three-fourths of the rental. 
 
 In confirmation of that estimate I will give a few 
 details from various authorities. 
 
 I find in Bucks a farm of 400 acres (paying a rent 
 of 400/.) pays 4s. an acre for tithes, or 80/., and 6s. an 
 acre for poor, highway, and county rates, or 120/. 
 Davis, in his " I'arn)ers' Resources," states that the 
 rent of arable land in all England averages 20s. an 
 acre, the assessment of which would be I5s. net. Mr. 
 Carrourdine, in Essex, adduces many farmswhich pay 
 an average rent between 13s. and 25s. an acre. Mr. 
 Painter, of Worcestershire, says that an acre of wheat 
 costs 61. in this way, rent 30s., poor rates 2s. 6d., road 
 rates Is. 6d., cultivation 3/. 12s., making 6/. ; besides 
 tithes above 4s., church rates and others about 2s. 6d. 
 an acre, thus averaging 10s. 6d. an acre total taxa- 
 tion. In Essex Mr. Baker estimates the tenant's 
 taxes, tithes, &c. on 100 acres of land at 55/., or lis. 
 an acre. Lord Worsley estimates a farm at 30s. an 
 acre rent, 3s. an acre parochial charges, and 5s. an 
 acre tithes. In Norfolk the rent, tithes, taxes, &c- 
 paid by a tenant averages 21. 6s. 6d. an acre yearly 
 I find the averages stated by Mr. M. Martin, were 
 that a landed proprietor having an income of 3,000/. 
 a year would pay 750/. a year to poor rates alone, 
 then there are other rates which would make up to 
 1,000/., or one-third. Bayldon in his work estimates 
 for 200 acres the occupiers rates and tithes to average 
 145/. every year. 
 
 These variations are caused by the localities, but it 
 has been before shown that lor England alone, poor 
 rate, with the other local taxes of highway, county, 
 and church rates, averaged on land about 6s. 6d. in 
 the pound, besides tithes and other taxes ; this ex- 
 tended over nearly 14,000 parishes, and the Report 
 on local taxation states that " this burden of taxa- 
 tion was so intolerable as in some places to throw 
 land out of cultivation." 
 
 Having now shewn the totals, I will exhibit the 
 inequality and disproportion borne by railways of 
 those rates and taxes which a tenant or occupier pays 
 and those which the landlord or owner pays, and both 
 of which railways bear, being owners as well as occu- 
 piers. I have by various modes ascertained the ave- 
 rage number of acres of land to a mile of railway ; I 
 have taken the evidence before Committees this ses- 
 tion on projected railways, the evidence on old rail- 
 ways, the actual facts by the quantities of land pur- 
 chased, and the lengths of lines of railway occupying 
 it, and I found 10 acres to a mile of railway to be a 
 full and liberal average. In the evidence before the 
 Committee of the House of Conmions (1844), Mr. 
 Laing stated, "between 8 and 10 acres to a mile of 
 railway," and that 3/. an acre would be above the full 
 average for the annual value of the land, now assessed 
 at the rate of 2,000/. a mile. In the debate (1843) on 
 the burdens of land, it was considered that 8 acres 
 would average a mile of railway- 
 
 I have analysed (statement A) the Reports issued 
 by 27 of the principal English railways, length above 
 1,200 miles, (say 12,000 acres) as to their receipts 
 and expenditure for the last six months of 1843. It 
 appears that for those six months their gross traffic
 
 17 
 
 receipts were above 2,501,002/. Deduct for working 
 expenses necessary towards earning tliose receipts 
 about 811,462/. Interest on loans, &c., 384,696/. Go- 
 vernment duty, 80,540/. lOs., leaving about a million 
 and a quarter. Next, deduct the local rates and taxes 
 paid of 55,500/., (besides tithes, assessed taxes, land- 
 tax, or its redemption, &c.) and other outlay, so 
 that the ultimate result of those six months was that 
 out of two and a half millions of gross receipts, 
 about one and a half millions went for expenses, as 
 there was left and divided only about 1,055,646/., and 
 that was subject to Income Tax, &c. 
 
 These give an average for a whole year on 1,200 
 miles of the principal railways, of traffic receipts five 
 millions, or 4,200/. per mile ; working expenses, one 
 and a half millions, or 1,400/. per mile ; Government 
 duty, 161,000/., or 175/. per mile; local rates, &c., 
 111,000/., or 92/. per mile ; and interest on loans, &c., 
 &Ci, so as to leave only about two millions for divi- 
 sion subject to Income Tax, &c. 
 
 It will be seen that those local or parochial rates 
 nearly equalled the Government duty of 5 per cent, 
 (being 7-lOths), they were above 2^ per cent, on the 
 gross receipts of large and small lines (but it must be 
 borne in mind that on the large lines they are nearly 
 double that), and above 5 per cent, on the profit. 
 
 For a year these figures give an average annual 
 value for assessment of the l,200miles (or 12,000 acres) 
 of above 555,000/., or nearly 48/. per acre, which at 
 4s. in the pound for rate gives a yearly payment 
 for rate of about 9/. 2s. per acre ; whereas as ordinary 
 land the assessed value of it was less than 8,000/., or 
 15s. per acre, which assessment would have paid for 
 total local rates less than 2,400/.. or 4s. per acre, ac- 
 cording to the preceding averages. This is an in- 
 crease in the proportion of 4,800 to 100 — being at 
 least 48 times the amount originally paid for the 
 same land, and on the principal lines it is nearly 
 double that ! 
 
 I will now advert to the remaining English rail- 
 ways, say 28 (Statement B.), omitted from the above 
 calculations. Those, with the additions made, and 
 which will be further made this year with several 
 minor railways not enumerated, will make up say 
 800 miles more of length of railway. From those I 
 have been unable to obtain returns, and have therefore 
 considei-ed the averages of the other lines, and the 
 earlier receipts, and compared them with the preced- 
 ing calculations. 
 
 Before entering upon those calculations, I will ad- 
 vert to some earlier official figures, which will bear 
 out and support those which I shall adduce : — Ap- 
 pendix 2 to " Railway Report, 1844," states the total 
 traffic receipts for 1842, on all the railways in the 
 United Kingdom, at 3,100,000/. passengers, and 
 1,700,000/. for merchandise, &c., making nearly five 
 millions. By " Railway Reform" it appears two- 
 thirds of the receipts come from the passengers. Its 
 Tables 5, 6, and 7 comprise 55 railways, 1,732 miles 
 in length, and show the expenditure to be above two 
 millions, and that " 50 per cent, on receipts is a fair 
 average for expenditure" (the amount is less, but that 
 is not material), leaving a net profit of nearly three 
 millions on that year ; but whether interest on loans, 
 &c., are to be paid thereout does not clearly appear — 
 I apprehend it is. It also estimates that for 1843 the 
 gross receipts will have increased to six millions; and 
 if from that be deducted (he says 50) say 40 per cent, 
 expenses, there would be left (three to) four millions 
 
 D 
 
 profit on the whole year, of all the railways. Mr. 
 Gait, in his evidence, 1844, says that the Railway 
 Companies get six millions, and work at 35 per cent, 
 upon that ; but he appears to omit interest on loans. 
 It will be seen that the increase is much more, 
 and that in 1843 the 27 railways (1,200 miles) earned 
 an average of five millions, which had in 1842 only 
 earned four millions. 
 
 Several of the railways omitted from statement A, 
 and included in B. are noticed in" Railway Reform," 
 and in the Appendix to " Railway Report, 1844." I 
 find there the following figures for 1842, for 16 of 
 those railways, which I include in B., and extending 
 245 miles : — gross receipts 486,100/. (or nearly 2,000/. 
 per mile); expenses 162,450?.; net profit 323,650/.: 
 but " Reform's" 7th table makes no deductions from 
 the gross receipts of some of those for expenses, nor 
 for interest on loans, &c. ! ! ! 
 
 In 1843, there was a vast increase of receipts on the 
 27 railways in A., as is before shewn. The " Railway 
 Report" says, that during 1843 the receipts increased 
 5 per cent, and the expenditure diminished to 40 per 
 cent., making a difference on the official calculation 
 of 300,000/. The Pontop and South Shields Railway 
 in 1842 received 40,000/., or about 1,700/. per mile, 
 and in six months of 1843 received 30,699/. (averaging 
 3000/. a mile per year), and paid 1,058/. for ratesj 
 5,000r. for interest, in a total expenditure of 25,000/* 
 for six months. 
 
 I feel justified in taking the remaining railways' 
 gross receipts for the year at 2,000,000'., being 800 
 miles, at 2,500/. per mile. 
 
 Taking the preceding average for small lines, of 
 only 2^ on the gross receipts for rates paid, we have a 
 further yearly payment of nearly 45,000/. towards local 
 rates, &c., (independent of tithes, &c.,) being only 
 56/. odd per mile, or 5/. 12s. 6d. per acre, on an assess- 
 ment of 225,000/., instead of the ordinary payment of 
 1,600/., being 2/. a mile, or 4s. an acre, on an ordinary 
 land assessment of 6 to 8,000/. We may, I think, 
 take the Government duty at about 30,000?. — the pas- 
 sengers are 2-3rds of the total traffic — and I observe 
 that the Parliamentary Return for 1842, No, 151, 
 gives on 400 miles of these railways a yearly duty of 
 11,244/. 
 
 From the above gross receipts deduct 40 per cent, for 
 working expenses, or 800,000/., and there would be 
 left above 1,200,000/. to meet interest on loans, &c., be- 
 fore paying any dividends, and which we may esti- 
 mate at less than 1 million a year on this 800 miles. 
 
 I may as well add a few words as to interest on loans, 
 &c., which is a charge upon the traffic receipts, as much 
 as any other outlay. Parliamentary paper, 1844, 
 shews loans 21| millions; the amount for English 
 railways alone is about 18^ millions ; besides loan 
 notes 2| millions (Laing's Evidence, 1844); and upon 
 these interest at say 4 per cent, would have to be paid, 
 amounting to about 1,000,000/. yearly. 
 
 From these calculations I have entirely omitted 
 Welsh, Scotch, and Irish Railways, as their taxation 
 is almost nominal ! 
 
 In taking 10 acres to a mile (which I believe to be 
 sufficiently correct for illustration), that would give 
 20,000 acres to the 2,000 miles of English railways. 
 
 Those 20,000 acres would have paid on these four 
 rates every year about 4,000/., or 4s. per acre, and the 
 same land now pays in the hands of the Railway Com- 
 pany, the enormous sum of say 156,000/. (besides 
 tithes, land, and income taxes, &c.)
 
 18 
 
 The following Table is a Summary for a Year — 
 
 No. 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Gross 
 Receipts. 
 
 Working 
 Expense). 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Interest. 
 
 Local 
 Hutes. 
 
 Total 
 Expenditure. 
 
 Dividend. 
 
 A. 27 
 
 B. 23 
 
 1,200 
 
 800 
 Estimate. 
 
 5,002,004 
 2,000,000 
 
 1,622,024 
 800,000 
 
 161,081 
 30,000 
 
 770,000 
 300,000 
 
 111,000 
 45,000 
 
 £. 
 
 2,8114,834 
 
 1,130,000 
 
 a. 
 
 2,111.000 
 
 1 ,000,000 
 
 subject to Income 
 
 tax, &c. 
 
 I'Jl.OSl 
 
 156,000 
 
 The following Table for a Year shows the Comjiarisons : — 
 
 Acres. 
 
 A. 12,000 
 
 B. 8,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 Rates paid. 
 
 111,000 
 45,000 
 
 Total assessment 
 
 on railways 
 
 yearly. 
 
 Actual yearly 
 
 value of land 
 
 to assess. 
 
 £ 
 555,000 
 
 225,000 
 
 £ 
 
 8,000 
 
 6.0f0 
 
 l.Sfi.OOO 
 
 780,000 
 
 14,000 
 
 Total rale 
 of land. 
 
 2,400 
 1,600 
 
 4,100 
 
 Thus the two classes containing 2,000 miles (20,000 
 acres) pay an average rate of 61. ICs. 3d. only per 
 acre, give a mean assessment of 390^. a mile, and 
 a mean rate of 68/. 2s. Cd. per mile for 1813; but it 
 must be borne in mind that they are fast approaching 
 double this amount ! 
 
 This amount of contribution to local taxation by 
 railways is in no fair proportion to the whole amount 
 of the local taxation, nor to the quantity or extent of the 
 property assessed ; it is based upon receipts arising not 
 simply from or out of the land, but from something 
 besides, from the addition and profits of trade as car- 
 riers, and not the mere worth of the land as cultivated 
 land. In Ireland, Scotland, and on the continent, the 
 railways are not assessed on so excessive and oppres- 
 sive a principle, their taxation in those countries is 
 trifling ; and even in England canals pay only on the 
 small scale of toll. The Regent's Canal for six months 
 in 1843, received 19,800/., and paid for rates and taxes 
 on canal, docks, &c., Src, 210/. 4s. 9d., their expenses 
 being only 7,700/., and so every half-year averages. 
 For the closing half-year their receipts were 20,000?., 
 their rates and taxes only 177/. 
 
 It may be as well to give a few illustrations and au- 
 thorities confirming my computations, and showing 
 the oppressive operation of the rating on gross traffic 
 instead of on the toll principle. 
 
 Appendix No. 2 to Railway Report, shows for the 
 half-year to December, 1842, an expenditure for "pa- 
 rish rates and taxes," on the Manchester and Leeds 
 Railway of 4,710/., being 4 per cent, on the receipts. 
 On the South-Western of 7,493/., being above 4 per 
 cent, on the receipts. 
 
 By a table in the Railway Times of September 
 1843, the average on several lines to June 1843, per 
 cent, was, of rates, 2^ ; of Government duty, 2^ ; in- 
 terest, 16h ; profit, 40J ; and the centage of rates was 
 shown as follows : — on the Blackwall, Government 
 duty, 4i; rates and taxes, 74 ; — Greenwich, duty, 4 ; 
 rates, 12i; (this railway pays taxes 1,000/., the net 
 divisible profit is 100/.) — South-Western, duty, 3^; 
 lates, 34; — Eastern Counties, 3i each; — Manchester 
 and Leeds, duty, 2i; rates, 4j ; — North Union, duty, 
 2J ; rates and taxes, 4^ ; and others are gradually ap- 
 proaching those amounts. 
 
 In 1843, the Manchester and Liverpool paid 4g per 
 cent, of their gross receipts. The Great Western were 
 increased from 19,000/. to 2(),G00'., in comparison of 
 1842 and 1843, being one-third increase, and about 4 J 
 per cent, of their receipts. 
 
 The Birmingham Railway assessments were in- 
 creased in the rural parishes in the year 1843, 3,000/. 
 over the preceding assessments, making 18.000/. 
 yearly payment for local rates! besides which that 
 railway paid 5 per cent, passengers duty, amounting 
 to 27,000/., income tax 36,300/., and stamps, together 
 making up a yearly payment to Government and 
 taxation of 76,700/. per annum, besides other col- 
 lateral sums paid indirectly by this one Railway 
 Company, for various matters. Appendix No. 3 to 
 Railway Report is a valuable exposition of the enor- 
 mous impositions of local taxation ; it is a statement 
 of rates, &c., on the Birmingham line, showing the 
 average rateable value of the parishes through which 
 it runs to be about 30s. per acre. The rate per mile 
 of railway to vary between 800^. and 2,000/. (say 
 1,200/. a mile) ; the value of the land occupied by 
 railway at the average rateable value per acre of the 
 parish to be for the whole line of 112 miles only 
 2,445/. 2s. 7d., whilst the total value assessed on the 
 railway and buildings is 134,159/. In one parish, 
 Milton in Northampton, it is rated at 2,000/. per 
 mile, the real value being 10s. 8d., and the total rate- 
 able value of the rest of the parish being only 1,355/. 
 Yet this line is the lightest rated and most profitable ! 
 
 I find that on the South-Eastern Railway ( Dover) the 
 working expenses (June, 1843,) were 49J per cent, on 
 the traffic receipts, out of which 17.5-8ths per cent, 
 were expended for " rates, duty and toll." The South- 
 Western Railway Company (for the like period) paid 
 for " rates and taxes, 18 percent, of their receipts." 
 These of course include Government duty, as well as 
 local rates and taxes. 
 
 The first judicial decision as to rating of railways 
 was in 1840, as to Mitcheldever parish, on the South- 
 Western Railway. That was a poor-rate made in 
 November, 1839, on the railway, for 4J miles through 
 Mitcheldever, and the Court held that the poor-rate, 
 which was for a proportion of the whole receipts o*" 
 the line (including passengers and other traffic), was 
 correct, and established the assessment at 3,800/. a 
 year. 
 
 Mr. Laing says, the rating before that was 600/. to 
 800/. a mile. Mr. Swift's evidence shows, that before 
 that case they were rated on the toll principle (about 
 one-third of gross receipts) less the deductions, and 
 that the lowest on the Grand Junction is 600/., and 
 goes up to 900/., a mile. In Warrington it pays on 
 850/. besides the stations. 
 
 l-'rom 1836 to 1843 the Liverpool and Manchester
 
 19 
 
 Railway Company were assessed at 2,000/. a mile in 
 the parish of Wavertree — -that was an average of the 
 whole line — they appealed to the sessions, but were 
 of course unsuccessful. 
 
 The Grand Junction Railway for one mile of land 
 in the parish of Sleighford, in Staffordshire, was rated 
 at 1,050'. per mile for the poor-rates alone, and the 
 validity thereof was established this year, and various 
 parishes which had waited that decision still further 
 increased their assessment. 
 
 On the Great Western Railway the assessments to 
 rates increase every year, and vary up to 1,000/. a 
 mile. Mr. Saunders, in his evidence, states, that 
 " there is always a tendency upwards ; that at Pad- 
 dington they are rated at 1,200<. ; at Bristol, 1,600/. 
 to 1,700/. ; in the middle of the line, 800/., which is 
 the lowest; at Reading, about 1,200/., besides rates 
 on the stations, and that they are gradually pro- 
 gressing up to 2,000/." 
 
 In the parish of Burnham, in Bucks, the railway 
 passes nearly two miles of length, being 3,426 yards ; 
 the Company paid poor rates on an assessment of 
 1,000/. a mile, their gross rental being estimated at 
 2,919/., and their rateable value at 1,946/., but the 
 Company at a later and at the present period pay on 
 a rateable value of 1,500/. a mile, the gross rental hav- 
 ing been suddenly increased to 4,671/., and the rate- 
 able value to 2,920/. 
 
 I will now glance at some of the remaining taxes, 
 such as tithes, land tax, income tax, &c. The amount 
 of assessment to the poor rate forming the guide for 
 the other local rates, and for the tithes, land tax, oc- 
 cupiers tax, &c., the Companies pay upon the in- 
 creased assessment of 700/. to 1,000/. a mile, or 70/. to 
 100/. per acre, instead of a few shillings. 
 
 As to the amount of Tithes I find (Jones, the Tithe 
 Commissioner), that the clergy are rated for the tithes 
 as one-fifth to one-seventh of the gross assessment of 
 their parish. Carwardine also says that they are 
 estimated as one-fifth of the estimated rental (of land) 
 of the parish, and he adduces several farms to show 
 the rental and amount ; it is evident they allude to 
 agricultural parishes only, as the total tithes were ac- 
 cording to Sir Robert Peel's financial statement, 1842, 
 estimated at 3,500,000/. (and vary up to five millions)^ 
 but as more than one-third of the cultivated land is 
 tithe free, the tithes levied on twenty millions of land 
 would be about 4s. an acre, and this amount is below 
 the average stated before. Wherever the railways 
 pay it, it is on the increased value, as estimated by the 
 poor rate assessment ! 
 
 With reference to Land Tax it is difficult to form a 
 correct estimate of the proportions, as on many rail- 
 ways it has been redeemed to the extent of several 
 millions of money. It now amounts every year to 
 about 1,200,000/. for England and Wales. That tax 
 appears to be authorised by statute at 4s. in the pound 
 on the annual value. It was by Parliament confined 
 to the valuation of 1692. It varies from one farthing 
 to 4s. in the pound on the present value. It was 
 made perpetual in 1798 at 4s. in the pound on the 
 valued rent. It is not an uncommon manoeuvre for the 
 owners of land, part whereof has been taken by rail- 
 ways, to refer to the parochial rates for the value of 
 the railway assessment, to deduct that sum from the 
 total original assessed value of their whole land, and 
 claim to pay on the difference only for the land left in 
 the owners occupation, although it happens to be a 
 considerably larger proportion of the original total 
 
 than that sold to the Company which is charged with 
 the difference. 
 
 Wherever it was not redeemed, the Company pay 
 in the increased proportion. 
 
 As to the Income Tax, the average net sum divided 
 between the shareholders for the latest 12 months on 
 the 27 railways amounted to about 2,111,292/. per year, 
 and taking the proportions for the other 28 (in B.) at 
 a net yearly dividend profit of about 1 million, mak- 
 ing a total of 3 millions, the income tax paid every 
 year by railways would be about 90,000/. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that 2,000 miles of railway have 
 paid yearly, Government duty 191,000/. ; parish rates, 
 156,000/. ; interest on loans, &c., 1,000,000/. ; income 
 tax, 90,000/., making a total of nearly one million and 
 a half, besides their working expenses, and leaving 
 a profit of less than three millions, that their pro- 
 perty is assessed for the purposes of taxation at 48 
 times its legitimate amount, and which is gradually 
 increasing to double, and forms the guide for railway 
 contribution to the 12 millions of local taxation, the 
 5 millions of tithe, and the 1| millions of land-tax, 
 besides assessed taxes, sewers, and the State taxes. 
 
 It has been said that the Companies would submit 
 to the toll principle of taxation, which the evi- 
 dence of 1844 shows to be about one-third of the 
 gross receipts, even that would be an enormous and 
 oppressive amount, although much less than the 
 present taxation, the amount of which was as little 
 anticipated as its impolicy was forcibly illustrated by 
 Sir R. Peel, in March, 1842, when he said — " I do not 
 think I need argue therefore against the revival of the 
 duties on salt, leather, or beer. Shall I then revert to 
 locomotion for the purpose of finding a substantial 
 revenue ; shall I increase the taxes on railways ? I 
 confess nothing but a hard necessity would induce me 
 to derive revenue from locomotion. I should contem- 
 plate with great reluctance, and regret the necessity 
 for increased taxation upon railways. I range the 
 taxes on locomotion and the taxes on gas-lights in the 
 same category with the taxes on salt I should be 
 unwilling to look for revenue from either." He did 
 but confirm the views entertained by the Legislature 
 and by the judges when they exempted canals from 
 taxes as being most laudable undertakings, and to be 
 encouraged and relieved in every possible way. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 IMPOLICY — REMEDIES. 
 
 This power of taxation, and expenditure, to the ex- 
 tent of above twelve millions yearly, is entrusted to 
 150,000 persons, and affords (L. T. Report, Part L) 
 " such great temptations and opportunities for abuse, 
 and cannot exist without a great amount of illegality 
 and extravagance." " Some taxes are incapable of 
 being levied if resisted ; others may, with great diffi- 
 culty and cost." (Local T. Report, p. 84). "Such 
 was the state of ignorance in England at the time 
 the statute of Elizabeth passed," said Lord Den- 
 man in Yarborough case, 1840, " that the justices 
 were to allow the rate," because the overseers were 
 persons generally who could not write." " Even now 
 it is not uncommon," says the P. L. Report, " to 
 find overseers appointed who can neither read nor 
 write, and are utterly incapable of the slightest man-
 
 20 
 
 agement, and the licnvy amount o( poor rates was to 
 be attributed to peculation and bad management 
 almost exclusively." The result of power placed in 
 such hands is, that the amount of rales is regulated 
 by mere caprice or ill feeling, and is maintained with 
 obstinacy, regardless of fairness or policy. 
 
 The principle of computation applied to the asses- 
 ment of railways is new, and is contrary to usage 
 under the statute ; and there are several authorities 
 expressly against the adoption of new computations. 
 
 Passing to the operation of the principle, the mode 
 of computation itself is very uncertain, admits of 
 much litigation, and renders a fixed rule of rating 
 much to be desired, not only by the Companies, but 
 by the parishes; and until that rule be laid down, 
 frequent and expensive litigation will continue. For 
 every rate the parishes have to ascertain the amount, 
 and they are bound by law to make actual calcula- 
 tion, and not " guess at random." They should in- 
 spect the Company's books, take and dissect the ac- 
 counts of traffic, &c., and ascertain how much of each 
 day's earnings went over that parish ; also apportion 
 the expenditure, &c. &c. Surveyors have to be em- 
 ployed, and to be ready lo support their " estimated 
 rent," in case of an appeal to the sessions, either by 
 the Company for excess, or by a parishioner for in- 
 sufficiency ; while at sessions, surveyors, witnesses, 
 lawyers, counsel, briefs, &c., are to be provided. 
 The expense of an appeal is not less than 100/. to 
 each party, and oftener double that amount, and al- 
 ways far exceeding the amount in question. The 
 trial of such appeal is most unsatisfactory, the per- 
 sons composing the tribunal being interested in 
 maintaining a high assessment on railways, and their 
 bias is so strong, and their conduct so partial in these 
 cases, as to have earned for them the appellation of 
 " Benches of (In) Justices." {Times, 24 September.) 
 In one parish appeal (see Railway Times, September 
 28th) I observe that one surveyor was paid 50 guineas 
 to make out and substantiate his assessment, besides 
 travelling expenses, maps, surveys, &c. ; and an ap- 
 peal having been lodged, the law expenses to each 
 party were above 200/. each, and being afterwards 
 carried into the Court of Queen's Bench, a like expense 
 of 400/. was again incurred ; and all upon a rate of 
 100/. These parish officers are yet engaged in se- 
 rious litigation, likely to result in great personal 
 loss. In another parish the overseer informed me 
 that he was six weeks copying out and dissecting a 
 Railway Company's accounts before making one 
 rate. " The Companies find most trouble (says Mr- 
 Saunders, in his evidence on railways in 1S44) where 
 there is a needy or quarrelsome lawyer," and his re- 
 marks would equally apply to some metropolitan 
 " houses," whose gradual decay of business has led 
 them also to discreditable practices of creating busi- 
 ness, which would not be done if subject to the fear 
 of publicity. 
 
 Of all properties, English railways have the 
 strongest claim to be considerately and moderately 
 treated, and if the law admitted of two constructions 
 (as Tindal intimated in Crease r. Sawle, and that 
 it was to render rateable all occupiers of real estate), 
 either apparently right, or of equal doubt, surely it 
 should be determined in favour of the Companies, 
 and not strained against them. They do not seek 
 to be wholly exempted from taxation, they are willing 
 to pay liberally, and paying on the toll calculation 
 would be extremely so. Railways are declared by 
 
 Acts of Parliament to be " great public benefits," 
 and on that ground alone ought to be wholly ex- 
 empted, as other " public property," and some canals 
 have been. They have benefitted the parishes 
 through which they pass, and the surrounding pro- 
 perty ; they cast no poor on the parishes, but on the 
 contrary, employ many thousands of poor, and in their 
 construction alone have already expended in manual 
 labour above twelve to thirteen millions sterling, 
 and will again expend as much on the new lines. 
 They have paid enormously high for their lands and 
 for their enterprise. They support their own police, 
 highway, lights, &C., yet contribute to those of the 
 parishes, and to all the other rates and taxes, (church, 
 tithe, land tax, &c.) from which the railways have 
 not the benefit that other landowners or occupiers 
 have, and that contribution is in an excessive propor- 
 tion, although the equity of the matter is in their 
 favour, and the law is strained and is very doubtful 
 in its construction against them ; in short these local 
 rates, consuming about one-fifth of their nominal 
 profits, it is manifest that the fares and public bene- 
 fits are regulated accordingly. Railways experience 
 an additional burden in the Government passengers 
 duty, which is all that should be laid upon them. 
 
 The question is not to be viewed through the nar- 
 row medium of legal technicality, but is to be treated 
 in a liberal and statesmanlike view, and on the broad 
 ground of public benefit, policy, and justice. Yet 
 the difficulty is to propose a satisfactory and easy 
 rule of rating, and upon that I shall only sum up a 
 few of the means of redress which occur to me, 
 
 1st. Carry out the principle recognised by the Go- 
 vernment " Equivalents" and Commons' Report, and 
 laid down by the Poor Law Commissioners, m their 
 official paper on valuation and rating, "that when 
 canal or railway proprietors are also carriers, whether 
 of goods or passengers, their profits in that capacity 
 must be thrown out of the question in estimating the 
 rateable value of the property," and assimilate rail- 
 waj's to canals by adopting the toll principle only.- 
 This appears the most equitable to those who have 
 mastered the subject. 
 
 The Leeds Canal (5 East), the Calder and Hebble 
 Navigation, the Grand Junction Canal (1 B. and A.), 
 the Birmingham and Fazely Canal, the Bristol Docks, 
 the Monmouth Canal (3 Ad. and E.), and others, are 
 some exempt from any taxes, others exempt from 
 paying taxes on more than toll, or on more than the 
 land had previously contributed, their Acts declaring 
 " that they are great public conveniences." 
 
 In the Regent's Canal case, Bayley J. said, " the 
 making of a canal being a work of great public utility, 
 and attended with great expense, it is perfectly just 
 to relieve the undertakers of it from a burden which 
 will attach only by reason of the improvements they 
 make at very heavy expence. It is not unusual there- 
 fore to insert in canal Acts clauses exempting the 
 undertakers from contributing a larger sum to the 
 poor than would have been contributed in respect of 
 the same land if it had not been so used." 
 
 In the Grand Junction Canal case, Abbott J. said, 
 "by the Act the Company have the power of taking 
 lands for reservoirs ; now, in that state the land is 
 wholly unproductive. If the Company, notwithstand- 
 ing that, are rated for it as land, there seems good 
 reason for the legislature to exempt them from pay- 
 ing the full extent of the tolls on the other parts of the 
 canal, for otherwise there would be this injustice done
 
 21 
 
 to them, that where there was no profit, there they 
 would still be rated, and where there was considera- 
 ble profit, there should be no diminution of their 
 burden." 
 
 In the Leeds canal case, Lawrence J. said, "the 
 object of the clause of exemption was to take care 
 that when the Company were engaging in a hazard- 
 ous undertaking which was considered to be benefi- 
 cial to the public, they should not be liable to any 
 other taxes than those which the land made use of 
 in the undertaking was before liable to." 
 
 In the Lead Company v. Richardson (3 Bur.), Lord 
 Mansfield said, "as all these undertakings are attended 
 with infinite hazard and expence, and often ruined 
 the projectors, it is no improbable conjecture that the 
 legislature meant for this reason, and in order to en- 
 courage them to proceed in undertakings of this pub- 
 lic utility to exempt them from any other burden 
 than those that the miner's law had imposed." 
 
 In the Calder and Hebble case, Lord EUenborough 
 said, "but inasmuch as the canal is for the public 
 good, and not merely for the private benefit of indi- 
 viduals, it is possible the legislature may have intended 
 to give this general exemption." 
 
 In the Bridgwater Canal case, the profits ultra toll 
 were excluded ; and Lord Tenterden, in the Bir- 
 mingham Gas case, said, " they are obtained by ap- 
 plying the skill and industry of man to capital, and 
 are not rateable in a rate on occupations." 
 
 The Great Dover-street Road Trustees ( 1 Ad. & E.) 
 were authorised out of tolls to pay interest to share- 
 holders who had made advances, &c. ; the 3 Geo. 4. 
 c. 126 (section 4 of which extended it to all roads), 
 enacted that no tolls, &c. should be rated to the poor, 
 and it was held not liable to rate even for the interest 
 portion. 
 
 2d. The enactments in the Railway Acts for keep- 
 
 ing an account of estimated toll, &c. might be carried 
 out and its admitted purpose and liberality efiected, 
 by a simple legislative declaration that such account 
 of estimated toll, &c. should form " the only basis of 
 assessment to the rates, &c.," or an Act declaring that 
 a fixed proportion (say one-third) of the gross receipts, 
 should be the gross estimated toll from which an as- 
 certained per cent, should be deducted for working 
 expenses, &c., so as to give an ascertained and cer- 
 tain standard for rating. 
 
 3d. The "personal property" principle might be 
 altogether adopted ; make allowances for loans, capital 
 sunk or interest on capital, &c., or on so much of it 
 as is sunk (beyond the fair purchase-money of the 
 land) to bring the land into that state which produces 
 the larger return than as mere land it would give. 
 
 4th. Fix the poor rate assessment at the sum the 
 land paid before the railway was made, and levy an 
 additional passenger tax, to be applied for the general 
 benefit of the whole country parishes affected, where- 
 by those parishes where property is deteriorated would 
 derive some benefit. 
 
 In concluding these hasty chapters, I may observe 
 that I have endeavoured to comprise the whole facts 
 and views which the subject presents, fortified by 
 authority, and that I shall be glad to find that they 
 have afforded any service to those interested in the 
 subject. 
 
 Until some alteration of the principle be obtained, 
 the Companies are justified in resorting to a scrutiny 
 of the steps preliminary to every rate, viz., the ap- 
 pointment of overseers, the form, making, allowance, 
 and publication of every rate, the demand, summons, 
 levy and distress for it, and the audit of the overseer's 
 accounts. I know that in very many cases these will 
 give at least a weapon of defence against the op- 
 pression of parish officers, and force the subject upon 
 the justice and policy of the country. 
 
 THE END.
 
 I 
 
 4
 
 INDEX 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ^ . . , . r o PAGE 
 
 Origin and rise of poor rates, &c. ,. .. .. ,. .. ,, .. .. ,, .. ..1 
 
 Statutes and cases — construction .. .. .. .. ,. ,. .. ,, .. ,. . . 2 
 
 Liability of realty and personalty 2 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 Principle and cases — continued .. ., ,. .. ,. .. ., .. .. .. ..4 
 
 Mines, Gas, Water, Canal Companies, &c. ,. .. ,. .. ,. .. .. .. ..5 
 
 Liability of personalty 8 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 Liability of railways — principle — two decisions thereon ,. .. .. ,. ., .. ..9 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Modes of computation — deductions allowed .. ., .. .. .. .. .. ., ..11 
 
 Difference with personalty .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ., .. .. .. ..12 
 
 Cases thereon 12 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Operation and results as to railways — statistics . . . . . . . , . , . . . , . . . . 15 
 
 Poor and other rates — oppressive nature .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..16 
 
 Comparison of land taxation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..16 
 
 Sir R. Peel's statement 19 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Injustice and impolicy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
 
 Canal cases .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..20 
 
 Remedies 20
 
 / 1
 
 ^ ^s: Tvn
 
 UNIVERSrrv of illinois-urbana 
 
 3 0112 061578982