ciple, and it will be sufficient to confine the statement of this case to one of the The above ratings of the several appellants were all made on the same prin

Messrs. Stapleton and Thorne

above ratings, to wit, to the rating of Edward Westbrook in respect of his occupation of 10a. 1r. 32p. of land; rated on the rateable value of 1597. 10s. at the sum of 117. 19s. 3d., all the other ratings will be right; and if that be wrong, all the others will be proportionally wrong.

Edward Westbrook's assessment was calculated as follows:

10 acres, 1 rood, and 32 perches, at 46s. per acre, is For four stools for making bricks, each stool being capable of producing in the year 750,000 bricks, at 1s. 6d. per thousand, being the sum payable to the landlord for each 1,000 bricks, moulded on the ground, in addition to the above 46s. per acre...... From which is deducted 10 per cent., as allowed by the Excise for waste, spoilage, &c......

From this sum a further deduction is made of about 33 per cent. for the breeze, ashes, and other foreign materials, used by the brickmaker with the clay in making bricks, and for that portion of the land which is being dug out, viz.

.....

Leaving a balance of.......

.... ........

£ s. d.

56 5 0

5 12 0

50 13 0

16 13 0

Per stool, being multiplied by four, there being four stools at work,

amount to

£ s. d. 23 10 0

£34 0 0

136 0 0

£159 10 0

The following are the facts agreed on by the parties, and found by the Court of Quarter Sessions :

In all previous rates the appellant has been rated on an estimated value of about one-eighth only of the sum which is inserted in the rate appealed against, such former rates having been laid with reference to the value of the land for any purposes of agriculture to which it might be applied; but in laying the rate appealed against, the respondents calculated the number of bricks which on the land in question were capable of being made in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, and the result was the large increase above stated in the amount of the rates.

In the business of brickmaking the following things are necessarily done:The superficial soil being removed, the clay or brick-earth is dug out; various foreign raw materials are purchased, and brought to the brick-field by the brickmaker-for instance, chalk, breeze, sand, ashes, and straw; some of these materials are always added to the clay or brick-earth; sand and breeze are always so used, and in the parish of Heston are obtained by water and landcarriage the former from Woolwich, in the county of Kent, a distance of about thirty miles from Heston, and the latter from London, a distance of about fourteen miles. The quantity of chalk, ashes, and breeze required to be used depends on the quality of the clay. Sometimes the clay requires to be washed, and for the purpose of washing it a steam-engine is erected, and used in many cases, but does not happen to be so on the field in question.

The clay has also to be ground or mixed in a mill, called a pug-mill; each pug-mill is worked by one horse, and one is necessary for each stool, a stool

being a frame or table, at which the bricks are moulded, and a gang, consisting of a moulder, a temperer, an off-bearer, a walk-flatter, two pug-boys, and a barrow-boy; each stool is capable of making about 750,000 bricks in a year.

The amount of capital required to enable the brickmaker to work each such stool is about 9007.; skill and care are required in mixing and applying the several materials above mentioned, as well as in making and burning the bricks, and ignorance or carelessness on the part of those who mix the materials, make the bricks, or have to attend to the burning of them, would destroy the bricks. During the course of the manufacture, the bricks are liable to be injured by the weather, and a single storm of heavy rain or hail has been known to cause injury to such bricks in a single brick-field to the extent of several hundred pounds. The Excise duty on bricks is also payable on the whole number once moulded, whatever may afterwards become of them, and increases the amount of capital required to carry on the trade; but an allowance of 10 per cent. is made by the Excise for waste, spoilage, &c. Bad and short seasons also render the process of manufacture of bricks of a precarious nature, and subject the brickmakers to considerable losses. The clay or brick-earth obtained from the appellant's field has never been sold by the appellant in its unmanufactured state, and the only use to which he applies the field, or such clay or brick-earth, has been in making bricks there with the different foreign materials before mentioned, and the clay or brick-earth obtained from the field. When the clay or brick-earth is wholly used up in a field, the surface soil is replaced, and the field becomes generally available for agricultural purposes, but must generally, though not always, be considered as considerably deteriorated by having been dug out.

The above-mentioned field has been used in the production of bricks, with four stools at work in it, for six years now last past; during the last year about one acre has been used up, and about four acres of the remaining surface were applied to no useful purpose; but part of such remaining surface, as well as that part where the clay had been removed, was and is used as a drying-ground for the bricks made during the year.

The number of bricks actually made on the field in question in the year 1844 was 2,800,000.

The whole of the field is calculated to haye contained originally clay sufficient to make 31,000,000 bricks, and the part still unworked is calculated to contain clay sufficient to make 12,000,000 bricks.

The following facts were also found, with the assent of the parties, by the Court of Quarter Sessions :-It is not usual for any one to rent a brick-field upwards of ten acres in size in Heston, or any other part of England, for the purpose of there carrying on the business, except on lease for a term of seven years at least, subject to its determination sooner in the event of such clay being sooner exhausted. The appellants severally hold under such leases, and Edward Westbrook holds the field above mentioned for a term of seven or fourteen years, or till the earth is dug out, and is liable to pay to his landlord 201. per annum as rent certain for the same, being a trifle under the sum of 21. per acre, without any reference to the kind of use which he may make of the land; and he is also liable, in addition thereto, to pay his landlord a separate sum, called a royalty or realty, of 1s. 6d. for every 1,000 of bricks moulded on such land in any one year.

The rent per acre for the above-mentioned field of 10a. 1r. 32p., which, on so taking a lease thereof, with liberty to consume the soil and clay or brick-earth (and without any liability to pay any royalty in respect of the number of bricks

made), any tenant would have been willing to pay, would have been the sum of 10%. per acre only. The usual tenants' rates and taxes, payable in respect of the same land, would amount to 17. 15s. per acre.

The appellants contended that the amount of rent per acre which a lessee would give as above stated, diminished by the aforementioned sum of 17. 15s., payable for usual tenants' rates and taxes, is the highest sum on which, in respect of yearly value, the rate ought to be laid.

The respondents contended that the foregoing rate on Edward Westbrook was rightly laid, and for the following reasons:-That inasmuch as it is ascertained that a brickmaker pays a rent commensurate with the number of bricks made, such rent must be considered as the criterion of the annual value of the land while being worked out for bricks; and that, unless this mode of rating was adopted, brick lands could not be fairly rated.

That there is a great objection in taking the yearly value as per acre. First, on account of the difficulty of ascertaining the depth and quality of brick-earth in each case. Secondly, that one brickmaker might employ twenty moulders on a single acre, and so quickly and almost immediately consume the clay, and consequently be assessed to and pay a rate for a short period only; whereas an individual holding the same quantity of land, from want of capital or other causes, might employ but few moulders, and thereby continue to be rated for a greater number of years, and the principle of rating thereby become uncertain. Thirdly, that a great difficulty would ensue by such mode of rating, from the necessity of repeated admeasurements to ascertain the quantity of land digging and manufacturing into bricks. And lastly, the general uncertainty that must necessarily attend the rating of property buried beneath the surface of the soil.

The respondents therefore contend that the only just, fair, and legal mode of rating this property is to ascertain the number of stools to be worked, and then rating upon the actual rent paid by the lessee to the lessor after all legal and proper deductions and allowances. Supposing this mode of rating to be recognised by the Court as the proper one. the amount of this rate is to stand, unless deductions hereafter mentioned are allowed.

The appellants contended that the rate ought to be reduced, and that the land ought to be rated at, and not beyond, such annual value as it would let at for any purposes of agriculture only to which it might be applied. It is agreed that, as such land, the annual value per acre would be 21. 6s.

The appellants also contended that if this, their first proposition, could not be maintained, still the principle on which the respondents had proceeded was clearly wrong for the following reasons:

That on the facts before found by the Court of Quarter Sessions, if the value of the privilege conferred on the occupier, as derived from the employment of his skill, labour, and capital in manufacturing bricks, be all taken into account, still, the rent per acre at which the said field might reasonably be expected to let from year to year (with the privilege of taking the said brickearth as incident to the demise of the said field), free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes, is the only lawful criterion by which the amount of rateable value can be ascertained; and that the rate ought therefore, on the facts above stated and found, to be reduced from the sum of 1597. 10s. to the sum of 85l. 10s.

The appellants also contended that, even if the respondents were right in valuing the said occupation as they had done by calculating the capabilities of producing bricks at the several stools likely to be employed on the land, still the land ought not also to be subjected to a charge of 46s. per acre, as other lands are rated in the same parish, the said 10a. 1r. 32p. not being employed

for agricultural purposes, but being wholly used in the making of bricks, either in obtaining therefrom brick-earth, or as a drying-ground, or otherwise in the production of the very bricks on which the estimate and rate are made.

And the appellants also contended that, even if the respondents had rightly imposed the rate in respect of the said 46s. per acre, and in respect of the gross charge on the calculation of 750,000 bricks, as capable of being produced in the year at each stool, still the deductions allowed by the respondents were erroneous and insufficient. And the appellants contended that deductions ought to be allowed in respect of the amount of tenants' rates and taxes, which is 3s. 6d. in the pound on the rental or rateable value, and 451. in respect of interest on the capital invested in working each stool.

The Court of Quarter Sessions overruled these objections and claims of the appellants, and confirmed the rate, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench on the several questions and claims above stated.

If the Court of Queen's Bench should be of opinion that the respondents' mode of rating is correct, the order of Sessions is to be affirmed; otherwise, that order to be quashed, and the rate to be amended, and any such other order to be made in the premises as to the Court of Queen's Bench shall seem to be just. This case was argued on Saturday, January 16.

Martin and Clarkson, in support of the rate.-The question here is, what is the proper mode of rating brick-fields; and the respondents contend that the proper mode is to rate them upon the amount of rent reserved, and upon the amount of royalty to be paid in each year, upon an average of the number of years for which the brick-field is taken. [COLERIDGE, J.-How do you ascertain the average amount of the royalty in each year?] The royalty is 1s. 6d. per thousand bricks; and taking the number of bricks which have been made in previous years, and the capability of making the same number in the remaining years of the term, you may arrive at a very safe conclusion as to the average amount which will be made in each year. [COLERIDGE, J.-If that were so, should it not be stated in the case? You assume that 750,000 bricks will be made in the year of rating; but the case only states that that number may be made.] The rate can only be imposed upon the ordinary amount-not upon the accidental increase or decrease in any particular year. If there is any defect in the statement of the case, both parties will, nevertheless, be satisfied with the decision of the Court upon the principle to be adopted in rating this species of property. The question depends upon the two statutes of 43 Eliz. c. 2, and 6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 96. The former statute expressly provided that coal-mines should be rateable; and upon the construction of that statute, it was held that all other mines were exempt from rateability (The Lead Smelting Company v. Richardson, 3 Burr. 1341); but the case of limestone, got from a quarry for the purpose of making lime, was regarded as distinguishable; and Lord Kenyon, C. J. said, "There is no pretence to call this a mine; but the land itself is convertible into a source of profit, said, indeed, to be uncertain; but it is well known to be productive." (Rex v. Alberbury, 1 East, 534.) Slateworks have, for the same reason, been held rateable (Rex v. Woodland, 2 East, 164); and also a potter's clay-pit (Rex v. Brown, 8 East, 528); so that it is clear, beyond all dispute, that clay, got for the purpose of making bricks, is a proper subject-matter of a rate. [COLERIDGE, J.-In Rex v. The New River Company (1 M. & S. 503), Le Blanc, J. treats that as a matter of course. He says, "Suppose a man occupying land, out of which he digs brick-earth, and converts it into bricks in an adjacent parish, would he not be liable to be rated as for brick-land in the parish where the land lies, in the same manner as if he had sold the bricks in that parish ?”]