Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/500

Rh 480 tion of the crown itself. If there is a personal private beneficial occupation, so that the occupation is by the subject, that occupa tion is rateable. Thus for apartments in a royal palace, gratui tously assigned to a subject, who occupies them by permission of the sovereign but for the subject s benefit, the latter is rateable ; on the other hand, where a lease of private property is taken in the name of a subject, but the occupation is by the sovereign or her subjects on her behalf, no rate can be imposed. So far the ground of exemption is perfectly intelligible, but it has been carried a good deal further, and applied to many cases in which it can scarcely be said naturally, but only theoretically, that the sovereign or the servants of the sovereign are in occupation. A long series of cases have established that when property is occu pied for the purposes of the government of the country, including under that head the police, and the administration of justice, no one is rateable in respect of such occupation. And this applies not only to property occupied for such purposes by the servants of the great departments of state and the post office, the Horse Guards, and the Admiralty, in all which cases the occupiers might strictly be called the servants of the crown, but to county buildings occupied for the assizes and for the judge s lodgings, to stations for the local constabulary, to jails, and to county courts where undertakings are carried out by or for the Government and the Government is in occupation ; the same principles of exemption have been applied to property held by the office of works. When the property is not de facto occupied by the crown or for the crown, it is rateable ; and, although formerly the uses of property for public purposes, even where the crown was not constructively interested in the way above pointed out, was treated as a ground for exemption, it is now settled that trustees who are in law the tenants and occupiers of valuable property in trust for public and even charitable purposes, such as hospitals or lunatic asylums, are in principle rateable notwithstanding that the buildings are actually occupied by paupers who are sick or insane, and that the notion that persons in the legal occupation of valuable property are not rateable if they occupy in a merely fiduciary character cannot be sustained. With respect to the particular person to be rated where there is a rateable occupation, it is to be observed that the tenant, as dis tinguished from the landlord, is the person to be rated under the statute of Elizabeth ; but occupiers of tenements let for short terms may deduct the poor-rate paid by them from their rents, or the vestries may order such owners to be rated instead of the occupiers ; such payments or deductions do not affect qualification and fran chises depending on rating (Poor-Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and Amendment Act, 1882). To be rated the occupation must be such as to be of value, and in this sense the word beneficial occupation has been used in many cases. But it is not necessary that the occupation should be bene ficial to the occupier ; for, if that were necessary, trustees occupying for various purposes, having no beneficial occupation, would not be liable, and their general liability has been established as indicated in the examples just given. As to the mode and amount of rating it is no exaggeration to say that the application of a landlord-and-tenant valuation in the terms already given in the Parochial Assessment Act, with the deductions there mentioned, has given rise to litigation on which millons of pounds have been spent within the last half century, with respect to the rating of railways alone, although the established principle applied to them, after much consideration, is to calculate the value of the land as increased by the line. The Parochial Assessment Act referred to (6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96), comprising various provisions as to the mode of assessing the rate so far as it authorized the making of a valuation, was repealed in 1869, in relation to the metropolis, and other provisions made for securing uniformity of the assessment of rateable property there (32 & 33 Viet. c. 67). The mode in which a rate is made and recovered may be concisely stated thus. The guardians appoint an assessment committee of their body for the investigation and supervision of valuations, which are made out in the first instance by the overseers according to specific regulations and in a form showing among other headings the gross estimated rental of all property and the names of occupiers and owners, and the rateable value after the deductions specified in the Assessment Act already mentioned, and as prescribed by the central board. This valuation list, made and signed by the overseers, is published, and all persons assessed or liable to be assessed, and other interested parties, may, including the officers of other parishes, inspect and take copies of and extracts from that list. A multitude of provisions exist in relation to the valuation and supplemental valuation lists. Objections on the ground of unfairness or incorrect ness are dealt with by the committee, who hold meetings to hear and determine such objections. The valuation list, where approved by the committee, is delivered to the overseers, who proceed to make the rate in accordance with the valuation lists and in a prescribed form of rate book. The parish officers certify to the examination and comparison of the rate book with the assessments, and obtain the consent of justices as required by the statute of Elizabeth. This consent or allowance of the rate is merely a ministerial act, and if the rate is good on the face of it the justices cannot inquire into its validity. The rate is then published and open to inspection. Appeals may be made to special or quarter sessions against the rate, subject to the restriction that, if the objection were such that it might have been dealt with on the valuation lists, no appeal to sessions is permitted unless the valuation list had been duly objected to and the objector had failed to obtain such relief in the matter as he deemed to be just (see Union Assessment Acts). In the metropolis a common basis of value for the purposes of government and local taxation is provided, including the promotion of uniformity in the assessment of rateable property. Provision is made for the appointment of an assessment committee by guardians or vestries, and for the preparation of valuation lists, and the deposit and distribution of valuation lists, and for the periodical revision of valuation lists. Appeals against the valuation list are heard by justices in special sessions, upon whom special limited powers are conferred. General assessment sessions, principally for appeals affecting the total of the gross or rateable value of any parish as being too high or too low as compared with other parishes, are appointed for hearing and determining appeals, and the lists are altered in accordance with their decisions. Those decisions may be questioned as in the case of decisions by courts of general or quarter sessions. The valuation lists as approved by the assessment committee, or as altered on appeal, last for five years, and are conclusive evidence of gross and rateable value for the purpose of various specified rates, including the poor rate ; and the poor rate is made by the parish officers in accordance with such valuation according to a form provided, see Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1809. It is to be borne in mind that the amount raised by poor rates does not closely represent the amount actually expended on the relief of the poor. The rates are made in reference to the prospec tive amounts required, and various payments not connected with the maintenance of the poor are charged by various Acts of Parlia ment on the poor rate. Payment of poor rates, and of the costs incurred, is enforced on complaints to justices, and by distress warrants and imprisonment in default. Special statutory provision is made for this mode of recovery. In conclusion, while giving full credit to the admirable Cons way in which the English poor-law system, and the prin- atif ciples on which it is based, have been and continue to be ^ promulgated and explained by the central authority to the ^ s ^ ( guardians and others concerned in the administration of the laws (an advantage in which poor-law administration stands out distinct from any other), we must add that a consolidation of the statute law relating to poor is much needed. Dr Burn, writing a hundred and twenty years ago, spoke thus : &quot; If it may be reasonable to advance further still in speculation, perhaps a time may come when it shall be thought convenient to reduce all the poor laws into one. The laws concerning the poor may not improperly be compared to their apparel. When a flaw is observed, a patch is provided for it, upon that another, and so on, till the original coat is lost amidst a variety of patch-work. And more labour and materials are expended (besides the clumsiness and motley figure) than would have made an entire new suit.&quot; Since that remote day the number of statutes has increased notwithstanding a multitude of re peals. At the present time the Acts of Parliament affect ing the poor laws of England alone, exclusive of Scotland and Ireland, number upwards of one hundred and thirty, and by far the greater portion of them have originated since the amendment of the poor laws in 1834. As to poor laws in other countries, the articles devoted Poo; to those countries must be referred to. It is to be observed svst that legal provision is made for paupers in every part of Si the United States. The poor-law system which obtains in the States in its general features is similar to that which prevails in England so far as regards the mode of raising the fund (viz., by way of rate) and the class of people to whom relief is afforded. Each district (commonly a town, county, or city) provides for its own poor. In some of the States paupers having no legal settlement are re lieved by the State Government (1834). The prevalence