steam power or not. Thus, places so close together as Oldham, Bury, Rochdale, and Bolton, and mainly occupied in similar manufactures, vary as much as 18 per cent. in the deductions allowed for the same class of premises. To make matters worse, in some places the machinery is valued, and in others it is not.

In the Metropolis an attempt has been made to improve this state of things by defining by Act of Parliament the deductions that shall be made; and yet, although no less than eleven different classes of hereditaments are provided for, we find "mills and manufactories" all included in one class as entitled to a deduction of one-third, though it is evident that there must be a very great difference in the wear and tear in some manufactories as compared with others say an ironworks and a brewery, both of which come under the same classification. In three other classes no attempt is made to define the deduction, which "is to be determined in each case according to the circumstances and "the general principles of the law." Under this head come the railways, canals, docks, water and gas works.

As regards public company rating some very curious methods are pursued.

For instance, in the case of one of the largest dock concerns in the country, I found that the overseers had for years been in the habit of making up the assessments in a variety of ways in the different parishes; the general principle appearing to have been to find the net revenue, to deduct therefrom 15 per cent for tenant's share, and calculate the current rates upon the remainder, the result being taken as the rateable value. In the largest parish the rates and taxes actually paid were deducted with the rest of the expenses, and, in addition, 10d in the £ was deducted for the poor rate at the end of the calculation. No deduction whatever was made for any renewal fund, and no tenant's capital was introduced into the question; though this latter point is not altogether without authority, as there is at least one valuer of eminence in the country who prefers (or so he said in a certain case) to take a direct percentage on the receipts in order to find the tenant's share. This process, doubtless, has the recommendation of simplicity; and may possibly produce a result as near the truth as the more elaborate and orthodox method. It certainly saves a world of trouble, in the first instance, to say nothing of what may follow in the witness-box, when one's valuation comes to be pulled to pieces in cross-examination-the more so, as this is generally the principal ground of battle in such cases.

Of course, overseers are not paid officials, though they do not appear to have yet excited on this account so much contumely as the unfortunate J.P. They are men with their own private businesses to attend to, and therefore cannot be expected to do satisfactorily all that they are supposed to do by the Acts. As a matter of fact, they relegate this work of fixing the assessments to a paid servant called the "assistant overseer." Here, at least, it might be supposed, occurs the opportunity of securing the services of some one who understands the work. Yet what do we find? Is the appointment advertised like

the surveyorships of most local boards, &c.? Is any serious effort made to obtain a man who has special knowledge of valuing property for rating, or even for any other purpose? Not the least. It appears to be looked upon as one of those duties that anyone can undertake-I was going to say anyone who can read and write; but I am not even sure about that. It seems to be about as much as some of them can do to sign their own names.

In the more important parishes the post is a well-paid one, considering the class of men that are put into it.

It is more or less a reward for political and private services (though this may be nothing unique): the election is by vote of the ratepayers in public meeting. The vast majority of these people never hear of the business until it is all over, if then. It is generally all cut and dried, and kept as quiet as possible until the eleventh hour. Should there, however, happen to be rival candidates, the prize may be secured by the sharper party by the simple expedient of raking together his supporters and packing the room early-not a very difficult thing with such small rooms as are used. In one large town in England, even the guardians are elected at a meeting of ratepayers held in some backstreet public-house: half-a-dozen friends of the candidate are about all the ratepayers that usually turn up. What can be expected of the class of men elected under such circumstances? No more than what actually happens. They occupy the greater part of their time, when they meet, in vulgar abuse of each other, until the state of affairs has become a public scandal; or involve the ratepayers in an expense of thousands of pounds fighting a powerful local company, probably for the chance it gives them of a trip to London at the ratepayers' expense.

Passing over much that might be commented upon at intermediate stages, let us refer for a moment to the final Appeal Court appointed to decide these cases; i.e., to the Sessions. Is this Court, even when presided over by a fully-qualified lawyer (or Recorder), capable of doing justice to a large rating case, such as I once heard a learned Recorder describe as a "hydra-headed monster" (and the case only just begun). There is not even the time for such a task; nor are a Recorder's fees calculated to cover it. The result is they have to be referred to a special arbitrator.

Mr. BALFOUR BROWNE has recognised all these troubles and difficulties, and, when he wrote his book on "Public Company Rating," in 1875, appears to have welcomed the arrival on the scene of the Railway Commissioners, who, in the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway case, gave the sort of judgment which is wanted in these cases, but which seems quite unattainable now. Mr. BROWNE's hopes, however, appear to have been doomed to disappointment; for the Railway Commissioners have not developed into a great rating Court, even for railway cases.

In a Sessions case, or arbitration, after elaborate evidence and learned arguments upon many contested points, and, after the expenditure of often thousands of pounds, we get a bare decision,

which, so far as it settles any of these disputed points, might as well have been obtained by the toss of a coin. It settles the assessment in that particular case (though even that only for the time being). Next year either party may reopen the whole question, and fight the battle again, inch by inch, over the same ground. Not that they are very likely to do so; but this only because both sides have had quite enough of it for a while. Besides, the fight itself may last into the second year, or even further. Whilst, as to being a guide to any other similar cases, it is of no use whatever.

There is, of course, a higher tribunal to which we may go for light. But this is a serious business in the matter of expense, added to that already incurred, to say nothing of making one individual draw the chestnuts out of the fire for the others. Moreover, this tribunal, or group of tribunals, must not be troubled with anything but pure points of law; and, even then, carefully confine themselves to the case as "stated" for their consideration. Unfortunately these cases are not always stated as well as could be desired-not to use a stronger expression.

66

Even the eminent lawyers who preside over these Courts, used as they are to dissecting a complicated case, seem to be fairly puzzled sometimes with those submitted to them. Mr. Justice MATHEW declared recently in a Queen's Bench case, in which I am concerned (now in the Court of Appeal)-"He" (referring to the Arbitrator) "has not stated any question of law": and, later on, that one of the most important points had been, "most ingeniously concealed by the way in which the case was stated": and again--"I do not know "what on earth has been done here; and I do not think that even "Solomon in all his glory could make out what was really done before "this Arbitrator, or what he is at." To make matters worse, this case was expressly intended to be so put, that it might, if desired, be carried further. Yet we find Justice MATHEW saying (referring again to the Arbitrator), “I am afraid he has landed you in a difficuity. If "neither contention is right, he has made no award; and if he has "made no award, whatever we decide, no appeal will lie from our "decision." And yet that Arbitrator was a Q.C. well versed in such cases, painstaking, and deservedly respected.

The result, of course, was most unsatisfactory.

I am of opinion that these "cases should not only be carefully drafted by the lawyers on either side, but should also be submitted to at least the leading expert witnesses on either side, preferably to all of them; because, though a junior may have less experience, he has generally more time to study the case, besides being often much keener, having a reputation to make. All will agree that it is most desirable that these cases should be put in the most perfect manner possible, and no pains can be too great to secure this end.

However, as we cannot easily get the Courts to clear up our difficulties, there is the more reason why we should discuss them, and try to solve them privately amongst ourselves.

I am afraid I am laying myself open to serious criticism, in more

ways than one, by selecting for this purpose a point that has already been determined in the North Staffordshire Railway case, * by no less an authority than Chief Justice COCKBURN; but decided in a way that I myself cannot think is right.

This is the question of taking tenants' capital, in company rating, at its present value.

Justice COCKBURN decided that present value ought to be taken; and all good valuers nowadays appear to follow him- at any rate, when they are valuing for the guardians.

Now, there appears to be some confusion here as to what it is that we are valuing--what it is that we want to get at. Is it the value of the tenant's interest, or the landlord's property? Of course, it is the latter. All the questions as to tenant's capital, tenant's profits, &c., are only introduced as an artificial mode of estimating the value of the freehold as nearly as is practicable. The process is not warranted to produce a true result, however conscientiously it may be worked out; in fact, it often produces an absurdity. This is the case of our old friend the "hypothetical tenant,"- the genuine article. There is no such being we have to imagine one, and surround him with imaginary conditions, and a fine field for imagination it appears to be sometimes! But when we introduce such a practical and natural situation as Justice COCKBURN assumes, we at once disturb the whole of our beautiful hypothesis.

We do not want to know, nor do we care, whether our would-be tenant can pick up his loose plant second-hand, or whether he will have to invest in new.

The freehold must be worth the same in either case. The difference concerns the tenant only, outgoing and incoming, if we take the case of a going concern, as Justice COCKBURN did. To follow his ruling would lead to the most absurd consequences. I have figured it out in several ways somewhat elaborately, which would take too long to go into here, and I will therefore submit only one example. I suppose it will be readily granted that it is not only possible, but quite natural, for an entirely new concern to be started with an entirely new stock of plant, tools, stores, &c. It will also be granted, no doubt, that for that first year it would be the correct thing to take that tenant's plant, &c., at its cost value. Now, what follows, if we take present value every succeeding year? Although the net revenue may continue unaltered, we make out that the value of the freehold increases every year: i.e., the more worthless the plant becomes, the more a tenant would give for the premises, which is absurd! Or, to put it another way, there being the same net revenue to be apportioned between landlord and tenant, the more the landlord is to receive, and the less the tenant.

And this brings us to another question as to which it would be interesting to hear the opinions of other professional valuers. Is a valuer necessarily bound to follow the decisions of the Courts on such a point? Of course, it may be impolitic to go against them. But still,

* 3 E. & E. 392; 30 L. J. M. C. 68.

his province is not to expound the law; but rather to say what rent he thinks a tenant would give for the property in question; and, if he finds that a rigid adherence to some legal decision results in a value that his experience and his common sense tell him is far from the true value, ought he not to ignore that legal decision? He has to put himself in the place of the landlord and tenant, and consider all the practical points that would govern them in determining what rent the one would accept and the other be willing to give. And I submit that neither of them would bother his head about such a legal decision as that referred to above. They would just use their own individual judgments, and would not give or take a penny more or less because of what any Lord Chief Justice may have said.

Leaving public company rating, and turning to that of works, factories, &c. It is now a common, if not a universal custom, to value these by taking a certain percentage on their cost. This is not a very satisfactory method, though it is difficult to find a better. It would, however, be a step in the right direction, and would promote equality, if valuers could be bound, or would agree, to take, under normal conditions at least, certain fixed percentages.

As it is, we have all sorts of percentages taken, which make a vast difference in the result. Again, some, having taken the percentage, consider the result as representing the gross rental, and others the net. If the right percentage be applied, either way may be used; but the latter is probably the better method.

The rating of machinery" has already been referred to at some length. But there are one or two points that might be referred to as briefly as possible.

One is the comprehensiveness of the latest and highest decision on the subject. In the "Tyne Boiler case (Court of Appeal) it has been laid down that, 66 things which are on the premises, and which are "there for the purpose of making them fit as premises for the partic"ular purpose for which they are used, ought to be taken into "account," &c.

Now, this appears to sweep in a great deal that no one has dared to sweep in yet. Sewing machines, for instance, have been mentioned as things which ought not to be included. But why not? Take the case of a boot manufactory, with its special and heavy sewing machines. Are they not there" for the purpose of making the premises fit," &c., just as much as the looms in a cotton mill?

And, if heavy sewing machines ought to be included, why not light ones? Is any particular weight or size to be defined? If not, we shall soon have to rate the poor seamstress for the machine in her garret; or, for that matter, myself for the drawing tables in my office which cannot be removed without difficulty, and which I cannot deny "make "my premises fit," &c.

I offer no opinion on the general question as to whether it is desirable or fair to rate machinery.

I have no sympathy with those who go about the country offering to defend manufacturers against what they are pleased to describe as