Janttaky 28, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
134
even Mr. Jones seemed to agree ־with him. Mr. Horsfall had accused him of having shown too much consideration for the tenant. He could assure them that he had shown equal consideration for the landlord, who generally had to pay the rates. He would ask them to remember that the appellant was lighting with his own money, whilst the respondent was fighting with somebody else’s, and so far as his experience went there was a great deal of difference (laughter). Mr. Horsfall was inclined to differ with him on the question of 20 per cent., which, he said, was too liberal an allowance. But when Mr. Horsfall knew the way in which the 20 per cent, had been divided, he would not, he felt certain, then say the allowance was too liberal. 17¿ per cent, had been a well-maintained figure ; but Mr. Eve, on some red-letter days, had succeeded in bringing it down to 16¿ (laughter). Mr. Castle did not altogether agree with his paper, but he was glad to find that he also considered the receipts and expenditure ought to be taken into consideration. Mr. Eve had maintained that there were no means of making owners produce their accounts. He would ask whether there were any means of making railway companies, water companies or gas companies produce their books? He thought not.
The next ordinary general meeting will be held on the 6th proximo when the discussion on Mr. William Weaver’s paper, entitled “The London Building Act and the Official Supervision of Buildings,” resumed at the last meeting, will be continued.
STUDENTS’ PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.
PASS LIST.
Of the candidates who presented themselves at the preliminary examination of the Institution, held concurrently in London, Manchester and Dublin, on the 18th and• 19th inst., the following satisfied the examiners: —
Adams, Lawrence Haynes, 1, Soutlidown-villas Burgess-hill, ,Sussex.
Adams, Paul, Woodville, Beckenham-grove, Short-lands, Kent.
Allen, Leslie Herbert, 4, Hawkwood Mount, Snring-field, Upper Clapton, N.E.
Anderson, Henry, Uplands, St. Julian’s-road, Streat-kam, S.W.
Bare, Arnold Edwin, 64, Lebanon-gardens, West-hill Wandsworth, S.W.
Barker, Charles Bussell, 4, Park-crescent, Portland-place, W.
Barker, Herbert Graham, 2, St. Paul's-square, Bedford.
Batterbury, Norman Boniface. Berkhampstead, Hert-Bell, Albert Henry, Woburn Lodge, Addleston,' Surrey.
Benson, John Ingham, The College of Agriculture, Downton, Wilts.
Blake, Alfred Norman, Maisonnette, Willis-road, Gosport, Hants.
Blyth, Harold King, Beinville, 30, Cotham-vale, Cotham, Bristol.
Boyton, Bertram Alfred, The Retreat, Church-row, Fulham, S.W.
Brealey, Reginald Woodhouse, Bose Bank. Leek, Staffordshire.
Browning, Sydney, 12, Beaufort-road, Clifton, Bristol.
Carter, William John, Glaslyn, Chatsworth-road, Brighton.
Clark, Cuthbert Harvey, 18, Palace-gardens-man-slons, W.
Clements, Cyril John, Stratford House, Mildenhall, Suffolk.
Coker, Harry Beginald Ellis, 2, Hillsboro’-road, East Dulwich-grove, Dulwich, S.E.
Daniell, Frederick Stanley, 13, Lexden-road, Colchester, Essex.
Davidge, William Bobert, Hopetown, Teddington-park-road, Teddington.
Davies, James George Morris, Troy House, Bugby, W arwickshire.
Dernutk, Bichard Harold, Leek Wootton. Warwick. Densham, John Boon, Olden Lodge, Purley, Surrey. Dinwiddy, Conrad Hugh, 12, Croom’s-hill, Greenwich, S.E.
Dodd, Harold James, The Glebe, Goring-on-Thames. Driver, John Bobert Farrant, 74, Burleigh-street, Cambridge.
Eldridge, Douglas Howard, The Bhespas, Mount View-road, Crouch-hill, N.
Farmer, Stewart Frank Haywood, 98, New-street, Birmingham.
Fishwick, Charles, Waterloo House, Wellington-road, Hastings.
Fletcher, Harold Vernon, Penshurst-park, Tonbridge, Kent.
Francis, Bonald Garnham, Stour-street, Sudbury, Suffolk.
Goodgames, Thomas, The Limes, Eaton Socon, St. Neots, Hunts.
Hanson, Harold, Holmwood, Edgerton, Huddersfield. Hardy, Harold Croft, 8, Morella-road, Wandsworth Common, S.W.
Hartley, Bonald, The College of Agriculture, Aspa-tria, Carlisle.
Heal, Herbert George, Arnewood, 9, Nelson-road, Southsea. Hants.
Hewett, Eichard, Whitelane Farm, Seale, near Farn-ham, Surrey.
Hill, Fred, Bridge Inn, Free Town, Bury, Lancashire.
Hillyer, William Harold, Knockholt, Bavensbourne-park, Catford, S.E.
Hitchings, Bichard Valentine, Downham, Bectory-place, Guildford.
Holbeche, Bobert Cecil, 21, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham.
Hopkin, Philip Lewis, James-street, Pontardawe, near Swansea, South Wales.
Hopkinson, Bichard Brown, Laurence Dene, Edgerton, Huddersfield.
How. Frank Vivian, West Cottage, Asylum-road,
Lincoln.
owes. Arthur Burnaby, 193, High-road, Balham S W.
nibble, Lloyd Unsworth, The Elms, Hunton, Maid stone. Kent.
asley, George Pitron, Old Studley House, Wim borne-road, Bournemouth, ackson. Bichard Stephens, 117, High-street, Sitting bourne, Kent.	.״ ״.	,	,
ames, Beginald Charles, Trereiffe, Kmgwood-road
West■ Tarring
Poole, Dorset.
Jarvis, William Howard Bigden, Worthing, Sussex.
Wm. Wright, of Wollaton, Notts, Member of the Council. These were read by the Secretary, Mr. Julian C. Rogers.
Mr. William Eve (Fellow, London), in moving a vote of thanks to Mr. Boyle, thought it was difficult to find anything in the paper they could find fault with. Mr. Boyle took advantage of every opportunity with regard to himself when he had to face him in the witness box, and he would have retaliated were it possible (laughter). He agreed entirely with the opinion expressed in the last paragraph of the paper, and thought that if all rating authorities gave it their careful consideration, they would arrive at the right conclusion (hear, hear). But the great difficulty was in carrying out the idea suggested. One great drawback was that colliery proprietors were under no statutory liability to keep accounts. There were so many outside circumstances to consider and difficulties to contend with, that he did not think it possible to establish so easy a principle as the one suggested by Mr. Boyle. One important point which further complicated the matter had not been touched upon, and that was in regard to wayleaves, more particularly when they occurred in parishes other than those in which the coal was got. He entirely agreed that royalties were not necessarily evidence of value. He could mention many instances to show that this was the case. He also agreed with the views expressed in regard to the gross estimated rental values. He was not without hope that they would soon be a thing of the past. If the suggestions made by Mr. Boyle were acted upon, colliery proprietors would be relieved to a very great extent. They had to pay on the gross estimated rental, and whether they made a profit or not there was no means of getting it back again. The speaker went on to draw a comparison between coal mines and railway companies. The latter, he said, were monopolies ; they were required to issue their accounts in proper form, and that being so it was only right and proper that the assessment should be based on the receipts and expenditure.
Mr. E. J. Castle, Q.C. (Associate), having expressed the pleasure it gave him of being present and listening to so interesting a paper by his friend Mr. Boyle, said there were three ways of arriving at the value of property. First of all, they arrived at its true value when it was in the market. They were then able to get at the rental value. Secondly, what would it cost to get the property. They would have to look upon the amount of capital invested and the years’ rental received in return. Thirdly, they could deal with the profit rental. But a tenant could not reasonably be expected to pay more than the profit would allow him, and it therefore seemed to him that Mr. Boyle’s paper hardly went far enough. In his opinion no such thing as rental could be applied, either scientifically or logically, to a coal mine. A tenant could not possibly be allowed to go upon the land and do what he liked with it in the same way as a farmer could.
Mr. Richard Horsfall (Member of the Council, Halifax) considered that Mr. Boyle had suggested the right course to be pursued in the future valuation of coal mines. At the present time assessment committees were generally composed of farmers, grocers, tailors, and all sorts of men, who practically knew nothing about the working of a coal mine. They fixed the amount upon which owners should pay their rates, and were particularly careful that they made the amount large enough, so that they themselves should reap some benefit by not having so much to pay. He thought Mr. Boyle had been a little too liberal in the table he gave showing receipts and expenditure. In the course of some further remarks Mr. Horsfall expressed the opinion that for assessment purposes every colliery should be dealt with on its own merits.
Mr. 0. F. Jones (Fellow, London), whilst agreeing generally with Mr. Boyle’s views, thought that the latter, as he was apt to do in all his works, had shown too much consideration for the tenant. Mr. Boyle seemed to attribute the increased rating of special properties of late years to the fact that assessment committees were anxious to get the rates from the best possible source. In his opinion this was not the case. He thought the increase was owing to the fact that there had been of late years a very large increase in the revenue derived from special properties. Obviously, the more properties increased in value, the more the owners could afford to pay. Mr. Jones proceeded, to remark that if there were some means of ascertaining the gross receipts and expenditure in connection with coal mines, Mr. Boyle’s suggestion could well be adopted. He endorsed the remarks of Mr. Eve as to the recommendations contained in the last paragraph of the paper.
The discussion then closed, and the vote of thanks, upon being put to the meeting, was carried with much enthusiasm.
Mr. Boyle, after returning his thanks, proceeded to comment upon the remarks of the various speakers. He said that in his humble judgment it was impossible to arrive at the gross value of property without knowing the receipts i and expenditure connected therewith. In that
“Queen v. South Staffordshire Waterworks Company,” and in giving judgment Lord Esher said :—“ But they have to rate property which in fact is not let, and the legislature has said that in that case the property is to be rated as if it were let to a tenant from year to year ; it has not said, as if it were let to a tenant •for a year, but■ to a tenant from year to year. In endeavouring to rate a property as if it were so let, everything is necessarily imaginary and unreal. ... A tenant from year to year is not a tenant for one, two, three or four years, but he is to be considered as a tenant capable of enjoying the property for an indefinite time, having a ■tenancy which it is expected will continue for more than a year, but which is liable to be put an end to by notice.” From the above it would be seen that this yearly tenancy was an occupation on which the landlord could jiistly ask for an increased rent in the event of the price of coal being high, or under which the tenant could ask for a reduction of rent in the event of a fall in the price of coal. Under these circumstances, therefore, it would appear only reasonable that the rateable value of a colliery should he increased or reduced according as the value of the tenancy from year to year has improved or decreased.
At the present time there were several methods which were adopted in different unions for assessing a colliery. One of the methods was to put a percentage on the cost of the shaft, to also put a percentage on the cost of the plant, to add the rent• or the royalty paid for the actual coal work, and to consider the total the rateable value. It was just possible to conceive under certain special circumstances that this might work out at a correct figure, but it is, to say the least, most unlikely. To begin with, the total thus arrived at must not exceed the fair value of the colliery as a whole, and it could only be correct if the shaft had been recently completed, if the plant was up to date, and the mine in such a state of work that the average rent reserved by ohe lease for the whole term of say 70 years happened to be a fair rent for the one year preceding the making of the rate.
The more it was considered the more he thought it would be agreed that to rate a coal mine on the principle above mentioned would not assist in arriving at■ the fair assessable value.
Another method was not to put a percentage on the cost of the shaft, but take into consideration circumstances in connection with the colliery, and to put a percentage on the value of the shaft, and a percentage also on the value of the plant, not to take the actual rent paid for the coal, hut to estimate the value of the coal per acre in the district, and to multiply the number of acres worked by the estimated rental per acre, adding a percentage cn the estimated value of the plant, and a percentage on the estimated value of the shaft. The fallacy of this method seems to be that it was all founded on an estimate. If the estimate was right the figures arrived at would be correct, but not one single item could be correctly arrived at• until the surveyor knew all the circumstances of the mine, as to the depth, thickness of •seam, etc., etc.
The third method, and the one which appeared to him to more nearly approach correctness than any other, was to treat the colliery in the same way as a railway, gas or water works, or any other special property which was rated having regard to its receipts and expenditure. There would be far less difficulty in valuing a colliery on this principle than a railway, and the amount involved in the former case would very frequently he larger than the latter.
In conclusion, Mr. Boyle suggested that any rating authority desiring only to arrive at the true gross and rateable value of a colliery, should take into consideration all circumstances in connection with the premises, including the cost or value of the shaft and rateable machinery, the age of the mine, the quality and quantity of the coal, the rent paid under the lease, the rents recently obtained for similar coal under similar circumstances, the output, the prices obtained for the coals, and the expenses of producing and realising it. Suppose two collieries, the expenses of planting the mine in each case being about the same, and the output from each colliery averaging, say, 400,000 tons, one made a yearly profit of £10,000, and the other made an annual loss of £8,000. He asked : Would any reasonable hypothetical tenant take either colliery wnnout enquiring and knowing these facts, and in any event would he pay the same rent for both collieries? It not, how could the assessment committee arrive at the gross and rateable value without themselves knowing anything of the chief and all-important circumstance which would operate on the mind of an intending tenant.
THE DISCUSSION.
Comments on the paper had been forwarded by Mr. J. A. Longdon, M.I.C.E., President of the Institute of Mining Engineers, and Mr. j
@TIjt ^ttrbfîiors Instítntíün.
THE RATING OF COAL MINES.
The President, Mr. Robert Yigers, occupied the chair at the ordinary general meeting held at the temporary premises, Savoy-street, W. 0., on Monday evening, when a paper, entitled “ The Rating of Coal Mines,” was read by Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C. The attendance included :
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.—Messrs. Daniel Watney, Alex. R. Stenning, Howard Martin, Henry Sabin, and Richard Horsfall.
FELLOW'S.—Messrs. Wm. Eve, Herbert H. Fuller, R. Humphreys-Davies, H. Trustram Eve, C. F. Jones. Arthur Harston, James H. Shearer, G. J. R. Harrison, Harold Carpmael, C. H. Bedells, W. A. Ball,
D.	Thos. Davies, C. A. M. Skues, H. R. McCarthy,
E.	T. Tutt, J. H. Thomas, Thos. M. Mellor, Percv H. Clarke, Martin Vigers, H G. Potter, Lewis H. Strouts, Wm. Weaver, W, P. Ryan, J. H. Sberwin,
F.	W. Jarman, John Jenkinson, J. H. Oakley. C. P. Oakley, E. J. Gairdner, H. T. Newmarch, W. R. Lawrence, and M. G. Ogden.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES. — Messrs. A. B. Richardson, E. R. Stoneham, F. H. Ángel, H. G. B. Wyatt, F. R. Wilson, H. T. Scoble, Montague C. Blunt. C. H. Price, W. T. Lamprill, Howard Straker. Thos. S. Dangerfield, A. S. E. Sedgwick, and Alfred C. Skingle.
ASSOCIATES.—Messrs. E. J. Castle, Q.C., and II. B. Hans-Hamilton.
STUDENT.—Mr. J. W. S. Humphreys-Davies.
Mr. Boyle, in submitting his paper, said the subject of the rating of collieries or coal mines was not a very attractive one, nor was it one in which many surveyors were engaged. In fact, the various law reports showed that there had been during the last 50 years hut few contested cases, and that there was not in fact any case reported where the method of the rating of coal mines had been specially considered or decided by the High Court. Having regard to the magnitude of the industry, one was somewhat surprised that this was so, the only explanation being that various rough and ready methods had from time to time been adopted ; that until recent years collieries were possibly under-assessed, or at any rate moderately assessed; and further, that in good times tb e precise assessment was not too closely criticised, the amount in the pound being comparatively small, and colliery owners and occupiers, not understanding the subject, were able and were content׳ to pay upon the amounts demanded without investigating the matter or taking advice as to whether they were or were not overassessed. He went on to remark that as regards rating, coal mines stood alone. Until 1874, tin, lead and copper mines were not rateable, but by 37 and 38 Viet., c. 54, these mines became rateable, and the gross rental was now the annual amount- of the whole of the dues payable during the preceding year. Coal mines, however, were not in any way alluded to in this Act, hut were assessable under the much earlier and more important Act of 43 Elizabeth, c. 2.
The reason why coal mines should be singled out for the purposes of taxation so long ago had been a matter of much discussion, but it seemed now generally admitted that the real reason was that in the early periods coal was found cropping out near the• surface of good quality and of considerable quantity, which in those days could be estimated with great exactness, and could be worked with little expense ; a very different state! of things to that existing at the present time, when it sometimes costs over £200,000 to sink a shaft, and several years of work before the coal was reached. The question to be decided in the rating of a colliery was the one set out in 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 96, sec. 1: —“ The rent at which the hereditaments might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants’ lates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent charge if any, and deducting therefrom the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent.” And when it was remembered that few, if any, coalfields were let to a tenant from year to year, one of the first difficulties of assessing the gross and rateable value became apparent.
Mr. Boyle proceeded to illustrate the way in which a coalfield is generally let, and went on to say that it would be understood that in working a coal mine the more coal that was got out the more the freehold was being wasted, and as long ago as 1828 a deduction was sought to be obtained owing to this fact, it being contended in the case of “ Rex v. Attwood,” shat a rate should not be imposed upon the coal produced, because that was part of the realty. Abbott, 0. J., said : “ It is the first time that such a proposition had ever been submitted, although many coal mines in various parts of the country have constantly been rated, and the argument in support of it■ is wholly untenable. The legislature has expressly made coal mines rateable, and they must be rated for what they produce, viz., the coals.”
One of the chief difficulties in endeavouring to arrive at the fair rateable value of a colliery arose from the fact that no collieries were let on a tenancy from year to year. The meaning of an occupation of premises from year to year, as mentioned in the Statute of Will. IV., had been considered and decided in the case of ihe