Explanation of the Return of Owners of Land, 1873, Page
3.
THERE COULD be no question, as
was said in the House of Lords, as to lessees for 999 years ; and indeed
lessees for shorter terms than that might properly be considered as owners.
A more difficult question arose as to lessees for 99 years, the
common term of building leases, and also as to some other cases.
It was said on the one hand, that the holder of a building
lease for 99 years, with occupying tenants under him, especially at the
commencement of his term, might fairly be considered as an owner ; on the other
that the holder of such a lease, when his term had nearly expired, could not be
so considered. In some parts of England
lands are frequently held on leases for lives constantly renewed, though
without any right of renewal, and the lessees are generally treated as owners,
though liable to be turned out on the expiration of the lives. Other cases of doubtful ownership might
easily be suggested, and it became clear that only an arbitrary line
could be drawn.
After
much consideration it was determined that lessees for terms exceeding 99 years,
or with a right of perpetual renewal, should be considered as owners,
but that lessees for terms of shorter duration, or for lives, without a right
of renewal, should not be so considered.
Instructions were issued to the
Union Clerks to frame their Returns in accordance with this rule ; but
notwithstanding this direction, it is extremely probably that in several
instances where properties have been held for long periods on beneficial leases
or for lives, as is the case in some parts of England, the names of the lessees
have been entered in the Return as owners, as neither the clerks nor the
overseers would have had any reason to suppose that they were not the owners in
fee. An Example of
‘Leases for Lives’
In
some of the Rating Acts the term “owner” means either the immediate lessor of
the premises, or the person receiving the rent of the same “for the use of any
corporation or any public company, or
of any landlord or lessee who shall be a minor or married woman, or any insane,
or for the use of any person for whom he is acting as agent.” It is obvious that such persons are not
really the owners of the property, and directions were therefore given, that
whenever it was within the knowledge of the clerk or the overseers that the
names of trustees, receivers, or other persons not beneficially interested in
the property were entered in the owners’ column, the names of the actual
owners, if ascertainable, should be substituted.
In
the case of joint owners it is probable that in many cases one name only will
have been returned as owner, though the clerks were directed, whenever the name
and address of each owner could be ascertained, to insert them.
Moreover,
the Act does not require any periodical revision of the valuation lists as
under the Metropolitan Valuation Act of 1869, and a mere change of ownership
would not render the preparation of a supplemental valuation list, or the
revision of an existing list necessary.
In some cases it was found that the names of owners who had died several
years ago, had been retained. In one
instance where a property had been sold in lots, it appeared that the names of
the new owners had not been inserted in the valuation list, and the single name
of the former owner was still in the list.
In order to obviate the difficulty from this source, the clerks were
directed, when they were aware that changes in ownership had taken place, to
substitute the names of the present owners in the Returns, and to apply to the
overseers or rate collectors to assist in revising the Returns before their
final completion.
Although the foregoing remarks refer
chiefly to the Owners column in the Valuation Lists, it should be stated that
this column has been found to be filled up with still less accuracy in the rate
books in those parishes where the Union Assessment Committee Act is not in
force. This observation applies to
several important towns, where, owing to the large number of separate
occupations, and the fact that the rents are paid in numerous cases to lessees,
trustees, or agents, the difficulties of ascertaining the names of the owners
or ground landlords may be said to be almost insurmountable.
WHEN THE necessary particulars
relating to all the Unions in each county had been received by the Local
Government Board, it became the duty of that Department to arrange and
consolidate the separate parish and union returns into one Return for the whole
county, and in doing this a further difficulty arose.
In
order to make a correct county Return, the name of each owner ought to appear
only once, and all the property belonging to him within the county should be
included under his name.
When,
however, the same name appeared more than once in the several Union lists, the
Board in London could not determine whether there were two or more persons with
the same name or the same person was repeated.
For
the purpose as far as possible of identifying the owners, it had been required
that their names and addresses, when the latter could be ascertained, should be
given in full and as accurately as possible.
Where
the same name with the same address occurred more than once in the returns, it might
be assumed as probable that the entries referred to the same person, but when
the same name occurred with a different address, it was probable, though by no
means certain, that different persons were intended. In all these cases it became necessary to communicate with the
clerks of the several different Unions in which the name appeared, to ascertain
if it referred to the same or different persons ; thus, for example, the name
of John Smith might appear in a county 12 times, and in as many different Unions,
and inquiry had to be made in each Union to ascertain whether the name
indicated one and the same person, or whether there were 12 separate persons of
that name.
A reference to some of the Welsh
counties, where there are large numbers of owners of the same Christian and
surnames, eg., the county of Cardigan, where the name David Davies occurs above
53 times, and John Jones above 70 times, will show the labour involved in this
branch of the inquiry, and it may be added that, independently of other inquiries,
upwards of 300,000 separate applications had to be sent to the clerks in order
to clear up questions in reference to duplicate entries.
IN SOME cases it has been
found impracticable to discover the addresses of the owners, and whenever there
is a single entry in the address column within brackets it must be understood
to show the parish in which the property is situate and not the residence of
the owner ; where there are two entries in the address column, one of them in
brackets, it indicates that it has been ascertained that the two persons with
the same address are two distinct persons.
Where the owners appear to be
corporate bodies, or to hold their lands in virtue of a public office, the
names are printed in italics ; but the Return must not be assumed to be
complete in this respect, as there is reason to believe that in many cases the
name of an individual is entered instead of the body or office which he
represents, and this remark applies especially to glebe lands.
Notwithstanding
all the care that has been taken, there can be no doubt that in several cases
the name of the same person will appear more than once in the county Return,
but, on the other hand, there will be many cases in which only one name will
appear as owner, although the property is really in several hands.
II. Estimated Extent.
The estimated extent of land in
connection with each assessment is probably taken, in most cases, either from
some former rate or survey, or from the account given by the occupying tenant
of the acreage of his holding. Extreme
accuracy therefore could not be expected, and in many cases, especially in
those of small properties, the acreage was found to be omitted altogether.
Where the acreage was not entered in
the Valuation Lists, the clerks were requested to furnish the best estimate in
their power ; but there are instances in which the Board have been unable to
obtain any sufficient information on this head, and in these cases the column
is necessarily left blank.
It
will doubtless be observed that a small acreage frequently represents a large
rental, but this may arise either from the value of the land being increased by
houses or other buildings upon it, or by the value of coal worked below its
surface, or in some few cases by the absence of information as to the extent of
a portion of the property. Instances
will also be noticed of a large acreage being represented by a comparatively
small rental ; and the explanation of
most of these will be found in the fact that a considerable portion of the land
is of a mountainous, or similarly unproductive character.