Jttne 10, 1899.
church. Thus, in many cases, in one or other ״ of these ways the tithe became divided into “rectorial” and “vicarial.” When the monasteries were abolished by Henry VIII., the rectorial tithes in their hands were appropriated by the Crown and afterwards granted to subjects who were called “Lay Impropriators” to distinguish them from clerical appropriators.
Tithes were of three hinds, “ praedial,” the produce of the land; “personal,” the produce of labour and industry ; “ mixed,” the produce of animals and stock feeding on the lands. The first of these were called great tithes, and, as they were ¡the easiest to collect, were usually retained by the monastic rectors. The two last were called small tithes, and usually formed part of the vicar’s endowment. The terms “ great ” and “ small ” have no reference to the proportionate amount of the׳ tithe.
In some cases the landlord and parson agreed that the tithe should he discharged in consideration of a gift of land or some other compensation. This compensation often took the form of a fixed sum, and1 was called a “ modus deci-mandi,” nowadays abbreviated into “modus.”
In 1836 the Tithe Commutation Act was passed providing for the commutation of the tithe into a rent charge, the payments in respect of which were to vary with the price of corn. Under this Act the amount of tithe payable in the parish on the׳ average of the׳ previous sever, }־ears was valued at the average price of wheat׳, barley and oats for a similar period, and afterwards this total amount was apportioned on each farm or else on each separate field or enclosure, the latter method being the most usual. The rent charges vary according to the fluctuation in the price of wheat, barley and oats in the principal com markets of the kingdom, but the poorer samples and tail corn which never get to the market do not, of course, affect this.
Formerly the remedy for nonpayment of till» was by distress, but since the Tithe Act of 1891 the methods of tithe recovery have been altered. Tithes are now payable by the owner direct, and only two years’ arrears car! be recovered. There is a reservation, however, that should the value of the tithe for any year ׳exceed two-thirds of the value of the land the excess shall not be recoverable. If the tithe is three months in arrear, the tithe owner may, whatever the amount, apply to the! County Council, who will, in due course, order the sum they consider due to be paid. In case the׳ order is not complied with and it becomes necessary to enforce it, the process varies according to whether the owner is in occupation of the land or not. If he is the Court will appoint an officer to distrain, but in case the lands are occupied by a tenant the Court appoints a receiver of rents and profits.
The redemption of tithe is mostly regulated by the Act of 1878, under which if the commuted charge does not exceed 20s., the׳ Tithe Commissioners, if they think fit׳, shall, on the application of either the tithe owner or landowner, direct that the tithe shall be redeemed at 25 years’ purchase, but if the rent charge exceeds 20s. they may, on the application of both parties, and in case of a clerical tithe owner with the consent of the bishop and patron of ¡the living, direct that the tithe be redeemed at not less than 25 years’ purchase. When, however, land is subdivided for building purposes so that further division of the tithe׳ is undesirable, redemption■ may be ordered whatever the׳ amount of the tithe on the application of either side at n׳ot less than 25 years’ purchase. When land is bought for several purposes specified in ,the Act, the purchasers are to apply for an order of redemption at 25 years’ purchase, and to redeem at that price.
Extraordinary Tithe Rent Charge was imposed on hop grounds, market gardens׳, orchards and fruit plantations generally at so much per acre in addition to the ordinary Tithe Rent Charge (which was apportioned on each field), and was in respect of the additional profits arising from the unusual systems of cultivation adopted on the lands on which it was charged. Under the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886, these tithes can no longer arise, and the׳ existing ones were commuted into a fixed rent charge and special facilities given for their redemption.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE,
994
Newpobt Old and New.—We have received a copy of the fifteenth annual report of the Newport (Mon.) Chamber of Commerce, with which is issued׳ a beautifully illustrated guide to the town, the river, and the docks. Besides the numerous1 views of interesting spots in and »bout Newport, there are two or thre© portraits of local celebrities, including an excellent one, of the new President of the Chamber, Mr. Thomas Parry, J.P. This ample volume contains also entertaining historical sketches of the “Castle and Town in Olden Times,” “ Modem Newport — Municipal and- Commercial,” “ Floating Docks,” “Dry Docks,” etc. The capital maps contained in the volume are also deserving of high praise. Many other busy centres of commercial activity might well follow, the example of Newport and issue such a book of valuable information.
ESTATE MANAGEMENT. *
By H. W. RAFFETY, F.S.I.
RATES, TAXES, AND OUTGOINGS.
There is no defined method of assessment except that it must be at an equal pound rate, but usually the poor rate assessment is adopted Under these circumstances, it will be seen thait the improvement and consequent raising of the value of part of a parish would reduce the amount of land tax payable in other unimproved parts, and that by building on or otherwise increasing the value of his property an owner increases his liability to land tax. This being so, it is always advisable to redeem the tax before commencing the improvement. The price of redemption is now thirty years’ purchase, which, however, hardly encourages large owners to redeem under ordinary circumstances, and especially so when the property in the parish is improving rapidly in value and the rate in the £ of the tax is consequently growing smaller every year.
The authority in regard to land tax are the Land Tax Commissioners for :the Division, and from them there is no appeal.
It will bo noticed that here again personal property, which from 1188 to 1798 was liable equally'with land to this tax, was then allowed to escape exactly as it escapes its liability to poor rate. If we follow the history of taxation onward from, that date we shall find that after several temporary measures the income :tax as we know it was finally imposed on its present basis in 1842, and while rendering personal property liable also* imposed an exactly similar tax on land, although the land tax, which is practically ¡the old income tax on land, still remained unrepealed, and, therefore, at the present time realty pays two income taxes while personalty only pays one. At present income tax is charged at the rate of 8d. in the pound, and is divided into five schedules. Schedule A (usually called property tax) is on profits arising from land and is payable by the owner, but usually collected from the tenant, who deducts the amount from his next payment of rent. It is assessed on the full annual value less tithe, ׳land tax, and outgoings, with a further deduction to cover repairs and insurance of one-eighth in the case of lands and one-sixth on buildings. The rent paid by the tenant is usually taken as the basis of value, but where the land is in the occupation of the owner the poor rate assessment is mostly adopted. Schedule B is the tenants’ tax, and is :n respect of the occupation of land which is assessed for this purpose at one-third of the full annual value. The remaining schedules are upon the different classes of personal property. Incomes, from whatever source, that do not exceed £160 a year are exempt from income tax. Up to £400 an abatement of £160 is allowed, and up to £500 an abatement of £100.
Inhabited׳ house duty was first imposed in 1796 during the American War. It was temporarily repealed in 1834, but reimposed in 1850. It is now regulated by the Custom and Inland Revenue Act of 1890, under which houses under £20 annual value are exempt, and also houses, shops, or offices occupied solely for carrying on any profession or trade. Dwelling houses attached to shops pay at the reduced rate of 2d. in the pound up to £40 annual value, 4d. up to £60, and 6d. above ¡that amount. Dwelling houses alone are charged 3d., 6d. and 9d. in the pound respectively on the same values.
Tithes were originally, aa their name implies, payments of one-tenth of the produce of lands to the church for the following purposes : (1) The maintenance of the church ; (2) the payment of the clergy; (3) the relief of the poor. The monasteries gradually acquired the advowsons of the livings and took the tithes, and, as a rule, probably appropriated the greater part for the second purpose for which they were originally intended, and only devoted what they considered necessary to the other two uses.
In this way, the original intentions of the tithe grantors were lost, and the tripartite division gradually ceased■ to be considered obligatory, and whatever the monastic bodies did in the way of church building and poor relief came to be considered charity on their part. Having acquired the livings and become rectors, they appropriated the tithes to themselves and deputed “vicars” to perform the ecclesiastical duties in the parish. These vicar® were, at tirat, dependent on the rectors for their living, but some time in the fifteenth century an Act was passed which compelled the monasteries to allocate some definite part of the tithe from the parish for the support of the vicar. In many cases, too, when a landowner had a church on his estate he had been allowed to pay one-third of his tithe to the support of that
measure of the claimant’s compensation was the value of the property in the market at the present moment. ״The warehouse was let to a substantial firm for the full term less three days, and he capitalised the net rent at _ 5 per cent., 18 years’ purchase, £1,008, or with 10 pa- cent. £1,108. He should think the Board bad better have the property, otherwise the claimant would exchange a guarantee in bricks and mortar for the guarantee of a limited liability company. If Mr. Yates sold Ids interest under the present circumstances there would! be a difference of five and seven per cent., or £355, including 10 per cent., treating the road as a cul de sac, but that did not give the measure of damage. In common fairness, if the School Board was going to׳ take away the approach, the least they could do! was to buy the property.
The Under-Sheriff: After taking this roadway, the School Board could get the rest of the property for nothing at all?
Mr. Field: Practically, that would be the result.
The Under-Sheriff:	It becomes a serious
question after this evidence, although it seems that the claimant would! be “having his cake and eating it too.”
Mr. Field: Otherwise the claimant is to sit down and let the School Board take the roadway, amid then go to the School Board and ask to be relieved of bis property, a most absurd position. The public do consider covenants when buying property, but limited liability companies are in disfavour now.
In reply to a juryman, the Under-Sheriff said Messrs. White would probably have no claim on Mr. Ya!te®.
Mr. Field׳ said ait present there was some damage, and some of the amenities were taken away. The capital value was undoubtedly diminished. The property was worth twice as much before as now; and half the value would bo £504, plus 10 per cent., £554.
After consultation between the counsel,
Mr. Ram said the School Board had decided to pay the fair value, and take the whole of the property.
Mr. Field said he put the value in that, case at £1,108.
FOB THE SCHOOL BOAKD.
Mr. W. S. Cooke, surveyor to the Board, said that after deducting £4 ground rent from ■the rent of £60, he capitalised the balance on the 6 per cent, ■table for the unexpdred term of 47 years, 15¿ years’ purchase, producing £368, and added 10 per cent, giving £956. He considered the investment slightly precarious.
Mr. Ram submitted that, under the circumstances, the Board were acting handsomely in giving this value.
The jury awarded £1,108.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE IRISH lAND AGENTS’ COMMITTEE.
* From LAND AGENCY, new edition, revised and brought up to date by H. W. RafEety, F.S.L
Mr. George Francis Stewart, the recently-elected chairmin of the Irish Land Ageuts’ Committee of the Surveyors’ Institution, was born ia 1851. He was educated at Marlborough College and Trinity College, Dublin, where he graduated Senior Moderator and Gold Medalist in 1872. He then entered his father’s office, and in 1878, on the death of the Earl of Leitrim, went down to the County Leitrim in oharga of the extensive Clements Estates in that county. Since 1879 he has been a magistrate and grand juror of the County Leitrim, in which he has a large number of agencies. He served as High Sheriff in 1898, and for the last five years has represented the County on the Central Executive of the Landlords’ Convention.
In 1885, Mr. Stewart became a partner in the well-known firm of J. E. Stewart and Sons, 6, Leinster-street, Dublin, which is now represented by his brother, Mr. W. T. Stewart and himself; and of recent years he has been engaged in many important arbitration cases. He is one of the Honorary Secretaries of the Irish Unionist Alliance, with which body he has been intimately associated since its formation, and he is also connected with several philanthropic and charitable societies.
Mr. Stewart was one of the original founders of the Irish Land Agents’ Association, and he has been successively Honorary Secretary and Vice-chairman of the Irish branch of the Surveyors’ Institution, of which he is now the chairman. Mr. Stewart married, in 1881, a daughter of the late Admiral Grim, and niece of Sir Clements Markham, President of the Eoyal Geographical Society. He is fond of sailing, and his oharming house overlooks the bay of Killiney.
Cnmpfiitsatton Case.
RIGHT OF WAY OFF NEW KENT-ROAD.
CITBIOTJS POSITION.
On Tuesday, at the Sheriff’s Court, Red Lion-square, the Under-Sheriff, Mr. Burch ell, and a special jury heard the case of “Yates v. London School Board,” in which a compensation claim was made for injury done to leasehold premise® owing to the Paragon private roadway, Newington, being blocked up by the School Board buildings.
Dr. Blake Odgers, Q.O., and Mr. Montagu Lush represented the claimant; Mr. Cripps, Q.O., and Mr. A. J. Ram (instructed by Mr. C. E. Mortimer), represented the Board.
Dr. Blake Odgers, Q.C., said the claim was in respect of injury done to a large warehouse between Ilenshaw-street and New Kent-road, Newington. The School Board had acquired a large area in the Paragon, and commenced to build in such a way as to block up entirely !the access to the property on one side, and, as far ■as he could judge, were about to block up the access on the other side. In common with other persons, the appellant possessed׳ a right of way over a 15ft. private roadway known as the Paragon, granted by Lord Llangaitoek. The warehouse was demised for 70 years from 1875 ait a ground rent o!f £4, with a distinct right of way to and fro. The premises had been let to various tenants, and were now in the occupation of Messrs. R. White and Co., mineral water manufacturers, at £60 a year, l״ut they seldom, used the right of way. In 1886 the School Board bought land from Lord Llangattock, took over all easement® and rights of this roadway, and had broken up part of it. The warehouse was approached׳ through big gates, and persons׳ could drive round from the right and !to the left, but could not back; the appellant had keys of the gates, which gave him control of the traffic along the private roadway. The Board could absolutely block the road in boith directions.
In reply to the Under-Sheriff, Dr. Odgers said the tenant did not appear and was not represented, but he had letters to show that he felt that something had been taken away. Messrs.. White, however, could not throw !heir lease up, and nothing was claimed for them in this׳ case. But the appellant had an estate capable of being sold in the market, a reversion for three days on a lease lasting until 1950, in which there was a proviso for re-entry on breach of covenant, and the interest would be greatly injured in consequence! of the Board’s action.
Mr. Edward Yates, the claimant, of 194, Walworth-road, said the! warehouse had gates arid windows which opened to the roadway. He had two keys given to him of the gates at each end of th׳.e private roadway, and iie gave them to׳ his under-tenants. A waveron could be driven up to׳ the warehouse and got out at the other end, but there was no room for the waggon to turn in any part of the road. The School Board had broken up part of the! roadway and obstructed it by permanent buildings in such a manner as to׳ block the way entirely ; in fact, the Board had assumed possession of it to the full. Messrs. White did not use the roadway at all; they had a new entrance and exit in connection with their adjoining factory.
By the Under-Sheriff: If the School Board would guarantee the rent, I should have no- ) thing to׳ complain of.
Mr. Edward Stimson, valuer and surveyor (Messrs. Stimson and Sons, 8, Moorgate-street, E.C., and 2, New Kent-road), ׳said the warehouse would be of no use without the roadway if Mr. Yates had to take possession. Messrs. White evidently did not need to use it, but the right remained and Mr. Yates could have gone round this roadway through William’s-street into New Kent-road. He should not advise a purchaser to buy the claimant’s interest without the roadway, and if the Board took it away they ought to pay the market value ׳of the property. Assuming that the covenants of the lease were broken, and Mr. Yates ¡could not sell, his loss would be £60 a year, less £4 ground rent, net £56 ait 5 per■ cent, 18 years? purchase, £1,008; with 10 per cent. £1,108. If the claimant wanted to sell bis interest immediately, the rental value would be calculated at £40 a year instead of £60, and the difference at 18 years’ purchase produced £360, or with 10 per cent. £396. Messrs. White would no doubt buy the property. If Messrs. White continued to pay the rent, as they were bound to do׳, there would be no loss.
Mr. James E. Field, F.S.I. (Messrs. Field end■ Sons, Chancery-lane, and 54, Borough Higli-street), said Messrs. White’s premises were extensive, and their offices were at Victory-place׳, through which entrance oil their traffic passed. By taking away the roadway the value of the warehouse was gone. On reentry after breach of covenant, Mr. Yates would be on the hip of the persons occupying the front property, who would be interested in knocking down the value of the warehouse. I He should say it would be valueless. The