The Queen against Capel, Clerk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 857
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 P. & D. 87; 9 L. J. M. C. 65; 4 Jur. 886. See Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Act, 1899, 62 & 63 Vict. c. 17, s. 1.
[382] the queen agaiiist capel, Clerk. 1840. Under stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 1, the vicar of a parish, receiving composition for small tithes, is to be rated on such receipt in the same way as the occupier of land ; that is, on the sum for which the same would let, free from tenant's rates and taxes and ecclesiastical dues. [S. C. 4 P. & D. 87 ; 9 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 4 Jur. 886. See Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Act, 1899, 62 & 63 Viet. c. 17, s. 1.] On appeal against a rate for the relief of the poor of the parish of Watford, in the liberty of St. Alban's, Hertfordshire, the sessions confirmed the rate, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. The rate was made on all the lands, houses, shops, warehouses, wharfs, factories, and other buildings in the parish, including the dwelling house of the appellant, on an estimate of the net annual value of the same, that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes, and deducting from all rent the probable average annual costs of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent. The appellant is the vicar of the parish, and receives compositions from the respective occupiers of land in the parish, for the small tithes arising therein. The gross annual amount of the compositions was 6601. ; out of which average annual payments of 821. 15s. are made by the vicar for tenants' rates and ecclesiastical dues; but the sum on which the vicar was assessed, in respect of the said small tithes, was 5401., being such a rent or yearly sum as the said small tithes might reasonably be expected to let for from year to year, free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes, and deducting from such rent a yearly sum, the amount of the ecclesiastical dues. The great tithes of the parish, which were in the hands of a layman, were rated in a similar manner. The occupiers of the lands in the said parish occu-[383]-pied at rack rents, that ia to say, the full rents which the said lands were worth to be let at. Such occupiers employed capital in the cultivation of such lands, and applied their time and skill in superintending the same ; and the profits derived from such cultivation were differently (i) At Nisi Prius, 8 Car. & P. 373. Coleridge J., at the trial, held that the question of ownership could not be raised by defendant under the plea of not guilty ; and the plaintiff had a verdict. Humfrey obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, June 1st, 1838, on account of the above ruling. In Hilary term (Jan. 13th, 1840), Humfrey mentioned the case, and, referring to the decision in Taverner v. Little (5 New Ca. 678), said that, if that judgment were considered right, he could not support his rule ; but that a different opinion had been hitherto acted upon. [Lord Denman C.J. We know better now.] Per Curiam (Lord Denman C.J., Littledale and Coleridge Js.). Rule discharged. 858 THE QUEEN V. CAPEL 12 AD.-6E. 384. proportioned to the net annual value of the lands, estimated as above, in different cases; but, on an average of all the lands in the parish, the said profits amounted to two thirds of the net annual value or rent estimated as above. The occupiers of shops, warehouses, wharfs, and factories, in the parish, occupied at rack rents, and carried on business of various kinds in their said premises, and made profits bearing different proportions to the net annual value of the premises occupied by them respectively in different cases; but such profits, on an average of the whole, were equal to the net annual value or rent of the said shops, warehouses, wharfs, and factories estimated as above. The occupiers of some of the houses in the parish, including the appellant, carried on no business on such premises yielding any profits. The appellant objected to the assessment as unequal and illegal, alleging that he was rated in a larger proportion to the full yearly amount of the clear profits of his tithes, and to the full yearly value of his dwelling-houae, than the occupiers of lands in the parish, who were not rated enough in respect of their rateable ability as such occupiers, inasmuch as they were only rated to the amount of their rents, estimated as above, which was a smaller proportion of the profits derived from the land than the said sum at which the vicar was rated bore to the yearly value of bis tithes; and that the said occupiers were not rated for any part of the remainder [384] of their profits, which amounted on an average of the parish to two thirds of their rents; and that the occupiers of shops, warehouses, wharfs, and factories, in the parish, were not rated high enough in respect of their rateable ability as such occupiers, inasmuch as the profits made from business carried on in the same, which amounted to a sum equal to their rents, were not included in the estimate of the annual value thereof to such occupiers. And he contended that such a reduction in the assessment on his tithes and dwelling-house ought to be made, as would bear a just proportion to the assessment made on the occupiers of lands, shops, warehouses, wharfs, aud factories, or that an increase on the assessments on the said occupiers in respect of their ability as such occupiers, ought to be made, in proportion to their profits respectively. The case was argued in last Hilary term (a). Sir J. Campbell, Attorney General, Wightman, Toralinson, and Puller, in support of the order of sessions. This is a rate upon occupiers, in respect of occupation, and not upon inhabitants; and the rating is correct, whether considered independently of the Parochial Assessment Act, 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 1 (V), or with reference to that statute. First, independently of the statute. If an abatement [385] had been made upon the vicar's rate (and also, as must have followed, upon the rate of the lay tithe-owner), by reducing it in proportion to the average of the tenants' profits, ultra the rent, throughout the parish, then the tenants would have been rated unequally among themselves. For, if such profits be rateable at all, each individual is to be rated (or, which of course is the same thing, to be subjected to additional burthen by the reduction of the rate on the vicar), not according to the average, but according to his (a) January 22d and February 1st, 1840. Before Lord Denman C.J., Littledale, Williams, and Coleridge Js. (b) " An Act to Regulate Parochial Assessments." Sect. 1 is as follows. " Where as it is desirable to establish one uniform mode of rating for the relief of the poor throughout England and Wales, and to lessen the cost of appeal against an unfair rate: be it enacted," &c., " that from and after such period, not being earlier than the twenty-first day of March next after the passing of this Act, as the Poor Law Commissioners shall by any order under their seal of office direct, no rate for the relief of the poor in England and Wales shall be allowed by any justices, or be of any force, which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto; that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent-charge, if any, and deductitig 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: provided always, that nothing here in contained shall be construed to alter or affect the principles or different relative liabilities (if any) according to which different kinds of hereditaments are now by law rateable." 12AD.ftE.388. THE QUEEN V. CAPEL 859 particular profits; which cannot be estimated upon an average of the proportion of such profits to the rack rent, inasmuch as that proportion ia lower or higher, according to the greater ar less richness of the soil. As the principle of competition will prevent any practical difference in the interest which each tenant makes on a given capital, and the remuneration which he receives for a given quantity of labour, whether the comparison be made between farmers of different lands, or between farmers and persons applying their capital and labour to other employments, it follows that the difference in the fertility of the land leased tells entirely upon the rack rent, which is what remains to the land owner after the tenant has received the same remuneration for his capital and labour as other labouring capitalists receive. He would not give [386] more than this remainder for rent, or he would be submitting to a less profit than he could obtain elsewhere ; and, unless he gave as much, he would be outbidden by others who would be content with the average profit. The rack rent, therefore, correctly represents the annual value of the occupation of the land itself, being that part of the profit which is independent of what is brought to the land by the farmer, namely, the capital and labour. It is what the tenant gives for the enjoyment. Where money and labour are expended upon a permanent improvement of the condition of the land, that falls into the rack rent, because then the land, so improved, would let to a new tenant at a higher rack rent by virtue of such improvement. Therefore the rack rent which could be got for the land, if a new tenant were to corne in, is the proper value on which a landholder is to be taxed as occupier. This is the principle of Rex v. Lord Granvttle (9 B. & C. 188), Bex v. Attwood (6 B. & C. 277), and Rex v. St. Nicholas, Gloucester (c). The remaining produce (or profit) is also a fit subject of rate where parties are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong, Appellant; The Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, Respondent
...(5) [1897] 2 I. R. 516. (1) I. R. 1 C. L. 283; 2 C. L. 577. (1) [1900] A. C. 150. (1) [1900] A. C. at p. 153. (1) [1900] A. C. 150. (2) 12 A. & E. 382. (3) 1 B. & Ad. (1) [1900] A. C. 150. (2) 5 B. & S. 505. (3) 3 E & E. 450. (1) [1900] A. C. 150. (2) 21 L. R. Ir. 353. (3) 29 L. R. Ir. 429.......
-
The Queen against The Great Western Railway Company
...land, independent of the profit of capital and labour, and the [191] cost of cultivation. The oases are all collected in Regina v. Capel (12 A. & E. 382). The parish here ascertained the rack rental in thia very mode; from the net profit they have deducted two percentages 80. B.W2. THE QTTB......
-
R v Westbrook; R v Everist
...and is a distinct matter from the rent. [Coleridge J. referred to the explanation of the word "liabilities" in Regina v. Capel (12 A. & E. 382, 412, &c.] The appellants will contend that the royalty is not such a. render as [189] can be incorporated with the rent for the present purpose: bu......
-
Hawkins, Appellant, against The Churchwardens and Overseers of Lamberhurst, Respondents
...the owner of the rent charge is entitled. The general principle upon which the assessment is to be made appears from Kegina v. Capel (12 A. & E. 382). And in Lumley's Law of Parochial Assessments, p. 31 (see 4th ed., p. 45), the mode of applying the principle [27] to tithes is explained. Th......