material on what basis the tax is levied, so long as it is assessed in proper proportion according to the instructions to the assessors. Where the circumstances of tenancies differ, the poor rate assessment is the best basis, the rent being the safest criterion of value.

If the tenants be made to pay the tax as part of their rent, they will, usually, be found to exercise care in seeing that the tax is fairly levied, but if they can claim to be repaid by their landlords they are sometimes indifferent, and if the landlord or the agent be non-resident, improper assessments are likely to be ignored. It sometimes happens that a tenant will connive-innocently enough-at an irregular assessment, or he may be the victim of a strongerminded brother tenant, who, as assessor or collector, or both, prefers customary and ancient methods to modern just ones. It is not an unusual thing, moreover, to find that tithe rentcharges, when paid direct by the landlord, are not deducted from the rent, and escape assessment entirely, and this for parochial rates as well as for land tax.

The landlord, of course, suffers in such cases. If the tenants pay the tax they take the charge into account and press for a reduction in the rent without troubling about an appeal against the tax. Thus, in one parish no reassessment had been made for many years. To relieve the tenant, on a readjustment of the rent, the landlord took upon himself to pay the tax, and in the following year, by a strenuous movement, got the tax reduced on one farm from £15 19s. 8d. to £7 16s. 4d.

According to the assessors' "instructions" ("Transactions," vol. xv., p. 272, Appendix to Mr. EVANS' Paper), the assessment should be revised every year, but there appears to be no remedy against neglect of duty, the assessors being in theory the servants of the payers, who are, therefore, themselves responsible if their officers are guilty of dereliction of duty.

In a district where an owner had for years been charged with land tax which had been redeemed, an addition was made to all the other owners of 25 per cent., but neither the collector nor the assessors could state the ground rate at which the tax was charged. In one instance an owner was obviously overcharged. On remonstrating, the collector replied that he had not drawn attention to the matter on a new assessment because, among other things, it would have reduced the amount by 25 per cent., and, inferentially, given some trouble to again readjust all the other assessments, there being no proper £ rating.

It is, on the whole, the best course for the landlord to pay the tax in bulk to the collector direct. By this means control is secured, and if the circumstances of the parish are changed by the formation of a railway, the opening of mines or quarries, the erection of new houses, or by other matters affecting the assessment, immediate steps can be taken to secure alteration. An agent constantly dealing with like questions will intervene much more effectively than a tenant farmer anxious to live peaceably with all men.

Care, however, should be taken to obtain periodical information as to the assessments. Publication by notice on a church door is an anachronism. Where any increase in an assessment is made, notice ought to be legally required to be served on the person affected. Someone should be requested by the landowner to keep him posted up in alterations.

The aim of collectors, assessors, and district commissioners appears to be to discourage appeals and frighten possible appellants. The invariable dictum is that there is no appeal from a decision of the District Commissioners. Their jurisdiction is, to the bucolic mind, shadowy, and their authority exaggerated, and when an excellent authority admits that he has been "conscience-stricken as to the per"functory manner in which land tax commissioners performed

"their duties," the poor payer may well pause before deciding to challenge them. Moreover, the tax is demanded of the tenant; a threat of immediate distress in the event of non-payment is usually effective, and this particularly where the landlord's pocket suffers in the end.

But to say that there is no appeal from the decision of the Commissioners in the case of a wrongful assessment, is as misleading as it is to declare that there is no appeal from the judgment of a landlord who issues a distress warrant. And, further, to declare that the party injured must appeal, is not true in every case. The "appeal" in the case of irregularity is by an action for unlawful distress, procedure which land tax assessors and collectors must be as careful to provide against as landlords; judges being merciless in penalising illegalities in the exercise of exceptional powers. In regard to irregular or excessive assessments, the decision. of the Land Tax Commissioners, however unjust, is final; but in regard to the assessment of property legally exempt by redemption or otherwise, no appeal is necessary, notwithstanding any assertion of the local authorities to the contrary, for the assessment of such lands is illegal. Land Tax Commissioners' Clerks are careful not to distinguish between the two positions, and invite appeals in both cases.

In cases, therefore, where the proof of redemption is in the hands of the owner, he need take no notice of an assessment.* The assessors' duties are rigidly defined as to the identification of properties redeemed, and such properties are for ever exempt from the charge. The collector therefore proceeds at his peril. Bourdin's "Land Tax," the text-book of land tax clerks, makes no mention of this very important distinction, but states without any modification (except such

* Properties formerly belonging to Ecclesiastical Corporations, and enfranchised, may be often proved to have been redeemed by comparing the certificate with old leases.

as may be gathered from the footnotes, and, perhaps, from a case mentioned in the appendix not altogether to the point), that "appeals once heard are to be final, without "further appeal upon any pretence whatever;" and "all "questions and differences touching any assessments are to be "heard and finally determined by the Commissioners, upon "complaint by the party aggrieved, without further trouble "or suit at law in any court whatever."

As a matter of courtesy, I apprehend no owner or agent would refrain from calling attention to any irregularity in the schedule, if he became aware of such, but he need not, and further, he need not either "appeal or pay" if he be prepared with evidence of redemption. Collectors, it has been found from experience, will think more than twice or thrice before distraining on properties which they are told are land tax free, and where land tax clerks are faced boldly they will find means for effecting amendments in the schedule.

This view, probably perfectly well known to the initiated on the receiving side, is not, perhaps, so well known on the paying side. It was taken with success in the case of one parish where there were a number of small redemptions of properties formerly held under ecclesiastical leases, the grantees of which had redeemed under the powers given to Ecclesiastical Corporations. The clerk and the assessors had solved the problem arising from past neglect by reassessing nearly all the lands in the district. Being met by the threat of actions for illegal distress if they proceeded, they, being unable to identify the lands redeemed, were glad to make terms. The identification was completed with some considerable trouble on behalf of the owners, and by their courtesy the collector and commissioners were saved the scandal of illegal distraints. The net result of the discussion was to reduce a charge of £58 levied at 10d. in the £ to

one of £45 levied at 11d. in the £, equal to, say, £400 capital value.*

A case subsequently tried in the Frome County Court bears out the view taken herein. It is true the judgment is that of a court of first instance, but, as far as can be ascertained, no appeal from the Judge's decision has taken place, and this fact will speak for itself. The only report yet found, except a short paragraph in the Daily Telegraph, is in the Somerset Standard, October 24, 1891.†

There are some other points in connection with the subject of land tax that might be further discussed, but those above referred to are, perhaps, of most interest to the practical readers of "Professional Notes," whose attention has not, in the course of their experience, been yet drawn to the question raised.

J. HENRY SABIN, Professional Associate.

* In another more important case the collectors and assessors have so far given the go-by to the dictum laid down, that they have allowed two years to elapse without proceedings, although the assessment still shows the property, alleged by the owner to be redeemed, as liable.

+ FROME COUNTY COURT.

[Before His HONOUR JUDGE CAILLARD.]

THE LAND TAX CASE: JUDGMENT.

The case of James Padfield v. Samuel Smith came up for judgment. The evidence has been fully reported in our columns of December 27th and August 22nd. His Honour, in giving judgment, said the action was brought to recover £30 damages from the defendant, a collector of land tax, for trespass upon land belonging to plaintiff, and for an illegal distress by seizing and selling a cow and calf, also his, under a warrant from the Inland Revenue Authority to recover 30s. alleged to be due for land tax. The defendant had paid £11 11s. 2d. into Court in satisfaction of the claim. The 30s. claimed was for two years' tax at 158. per year. The defendant admitted the first 15s. was not due and had paid that into Court as part of the £11 11s. 2d. He further admitted by his learned advocate (Mr. Ames) that the tax upon the land had been redeemed. Even without that admission he (the Judge) should have found without hesitation upon the evidence adduced on plaintiff's behalf that the land tax was redeemed in 1799, and had