CHAPTER XI.

THE RATING OF COLLIERIES.

THE incidence and burden of the poor-rates and other rates collected under that name upon collieries and their appurtenances, is so important a matter as to claim special study and examination from every writer on that kind of property. In this chapter it is intended to point out the statutes which bear upon rating; and then to explain the meaning of rateable occupation; the principle or basis on which the rating ought to be settled, with the practical application of the principle to some particular cases. Some extracts from the leading cases which serve to throw light upon the various points will be quoted in support of the propositions advanced.

By the statute 43 Eliz. c. ii. s. 1, it is enacted that the churchwardens and overseers or the greater part of them shall take order from time to time, by and with the consent of two justices of the same county, whereof one to be of the quorum, dwelling in or near the same parish or division where the same parish doth lie, to raise weekly or otherwise, by taxation of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other, and of

every occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, proprietors of tithes, coal mines, or saleable underwoods in the said parish, in such competent sum or . sums of money as they shall think fit for the relief of the poor.

Coal mines are thus expressly made liable to the poor-rate.*

By the Union Assessment Committee Áct of 1862, provision has been made for securing uniform and correct valuations of parishes in the unions of England. For this end the board of guardians appoints not less than six nor more than twelve of their number to be the "Assessment Committee of the union for the investigation and supervision of the valuations of rateable property. It is not necessary to refer more particularly to the enactments of that statute, which has no important bearing upon the principle and method of rating collieries. It will indeed secure a uniform rating according to some one system throughout all the collieries comprised in any union, but it does not affect to determine what that system shall be.

Although the statute gives authority to the officers of the parish to rate in such a sum as they may think fit, it does not import that they may arbitrarily impose the rate. They must rate the occupier fairly and justly, according to the value of his occupation, and with reference to the rating of others. The party rated may appeal against the rate on the ground that

* By the Rating Act, 1874, all mines are now rateable on the same principle as coal mines, except lead, tin, and copper mines; the method of rating which is specially mentioned in the statute.

he is over-rated himself or that others are under-rated. The statute 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. xcvi. enacts that the assessment upon lands, &c., is to be made upon an estimate of their net annual value, which is defined to be the rent at which they might reasonably be expected to let from year to year free of all tenants' rates and taxes and tithe commutation rent charge, if any, and deducting the probable average of annual costs of repairs, insurance, and other expenses which may be necessary to maintain the premises in a state to command such

rent.

It will have been seen that the rate is to be by taxation of every "occupier" of coal mines, &c., and it is, therefore, necessary to state in general terms who are to be considered as the occupiers of this description of property. The occupier intended is the actual tenant, and not the lessor. The rate is to be levied upon and demanded from the "occupier," but as "rent "is by the statute made the basis of the rate, it is substantially a landlords' burden. When an owner is also the occupier by himself, his agent or servants, then he is personally rateable. A question may occasionally, though rarely, arise as to who is the person who ought legally to be rated. If the person in occupation be a lessee, there can be no doubt that he is the occupier, as the lease conveys to him an exclusive interest in and possession of the property demised. But a licence to work minerals is distinguishable from a lease, and is only an incorporeal hereditament, or mere right. Yet as it confers a right to enter, work, and carry away part of the land itself, viz., the minerals, it seems clear that such a right as this is an interest in land.

M

If the grantee of such a right has an exclusive possession of the workings, as against the grantor and all other persons, he is to all intents and purposes the occupier of the colliery, and rateable. In the case of R. v. The Trent and Mersey Navigation Company (4 B. & C. 57), that company had agreed with the owners of certain limestone quarries that the latter should deliver to the company such a quantity of stone as the company should yearly direct at a certain price; and in case of neglect or refusal, it was to be lawful for the company to enter and take away as much stone as they thought proper, paying for it at a reduced rate. The company afterwards did enter and work the quarry, and were rated for the property. The case was sent back by the Court of King's Bench to the Quarter Sessions to ascertain whether there had been an exclusive possession by the company. Upon the affidavits, however, the Court thought that the right of the company was merely to get what stone they might think fit, and that there was nothing in the contract to prevent the owner from giving to others also the privilege of getting stone in the quarry. The company had not therefore any sole and exclusive occupation, but a mere privilege, and consequently were not liable to be rated.

The point cannot be said to be clearly settled, but it would probably be now held that the grantee of a licence to work minerals which conferred an exclusive privilege as against all others is the proper person to be rated as the occupier. For if he could not be legally rated, it is difficult to see what other party could be.

This view is supported by the late case Kitson v. Guardians of Liskeard Union (10 Q. B. 7). It was the case of a "cost-book" mine company, working under a licence from the owners to dig for ore and erect sheds, &c., on surface lands. It was held that they were the sole occupiers and rateable, and that it was immaterial what title, if any, was conferred by such grant. But where the owner of minerals grants a licence to work them without the exclusive occupation, it may be argued that that owner is the occupier in law, and the assessable value would be what a tenant would give for the land with all the advantage derivable from the working licence.

In the case of R. v. Tremayne (4 B. & Ad. 162), the owner of land had granted to certain persons a liberty to dig for ore, receiving £1 15s. for every ton of manganese raised during the term, free of all expense. Mr. Tremayne was assessed in respect of the sums he received. But the general principle was clearly laid down by Mr. Justice Patteson, who said (adopting an earlier decision), "Where a person receives without risk part of the produce extracted from the bowels of the earth, he is an occupier of land; but when he merely receives a rent or money payment, then he is not an occupier. Here Mr. Tremayne was not the receiver of what is extracted from the bowels of the earth, but of money; he is therefore not liable to be rated as an occupier of land."

The next point relates to the position of the occupier with respect to the value of his occupation. There is no doubt that the occupation must be beneficial, or rather, profitable, in some sense; that is, some