The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

and Alderson, p. 21, " I do not think that the remedy by dis-
tress is applicable to the case of the Crown, or that the
-stores of Government can be taken by that means."
Probably Buckingham Palace or Kensington Palace can
be decreed away from her Majesty by this Commission.
Sir Frederick Pollock has also given most decided opinions
upon important parts of the proceedings of this Court as to
sending the Jury out of court to take the evidence in secret ;
upon which this presentment is founded, and also against the
power exercised by the Commissioners (in the most capricious
-way) in altering the presentments of the Jury. In two cases
almost following each other, both upon the valuations upon
oath of the professional valuators. I allude to the Dissenting
Chapel on Paddington Green, in which the person who ap-
peared was sworn as to the cost of the building, and rated
upon 5 per cent. cost upon the outlay, added to the ground
rent actually paid. The next, the West London Cemetery,
returned to the Court upon oath by the professional vaivators
at an annual rateable value of f ;3201., reduced by this Court upon
evidence not upon oath, to 2451 per annum. There
is another anomaly in these extraordinary proceedings,
the professional valuators returned on oath that Hyde-park
and I(ensington-gardens were worth 301. per acre rateable
value ; the Jury in secret struck off five-sixths of this valuation,
leaving Hyde-park and Kensissgton-gardens at 51. an acre.
But these proceedings destroy all equality in the rating of pro-
perty for the first time assessed ; because the two surveyors
must, when put into the jury-box, support that which they
have sworn to, and admit that these alterations by the Jury,
and the Court itself, have destroyed the principle upon which
they proceeded, and also destroyed the equality of the rate.
There is one more fatal objection to this Court signing this
decree, and that is, the CoMmissioners have had the
fact upon oath presented to them, that in rating churches
and Dissenting chapels of equal pl tts of ground, in
equally eligible situations, the erection of which costs the
same sum, the principle which guided them in form-
ing a rateable value was, that as the Church property was ina-
lienable, and the Dissenting propsrty alienable, they took one
third off their rateable value of churches ; thus upon oath,
declaring that a taxation in presenti shall be laid upon a p-o-
-perty valued in future. And if the Court should Le so ill-ad-
vised as to sign the decree, they sanction this monstrous absur-
dity in rating.
Mr. Witte UG xav said the distinction was not between Dis.
aenting Chapels and Es'ablished Churches, but between Dis-
enting Chapels and Parochial Churches.—( Hear. )
Mr. LESLIE proceeded. My last proposition is, that if the er-
roneous advice given to the Commissioners he still further ac:ed
upon to the signing of the decree, such proceeding will bring
her Majesty's Commissioners of Sewers into contempt, as being
a final judg,ment of a Court of Record which cannot be carried
into effect, either as to a distress upon, or sale of, premises
charged by such decree. The absurdity of this doctrine has
been carried so far, that pew-openers e' chapels are charged in
the presentment ; that Richard Hall, the labourer in trust, or
clerk of the works, a servant, not of Chelsea Hospital, but of
the Offico-of Roods and Forests, stands in the presentment as
liable for a rate upon the chapels mid weeds of the Hospital,
and 57 acres of land. I need not repeat what I have urged
upon the consideration of this Court, but I ask this Court se-
riously to consider whether they dare issue a warrant of di.-
tress upon consecrated buildings or ground, cr attempt
to sell under the statute of Sewers, 23 Henry VIII., c 5,
the consecrated land upon which a church stands, or violate
the sanctity of that ground wherein repose the ashes of the
dead ? Then I ask if you sign this decree do you not affirm my
proposition, and bring her Majesty's Commission into con-
tempt ? Then I ask, dare this Coffrt attempt to sell Chelsea
Hospital because Richard Hall refuses or neglects the cess or
tax you may choose by this decree to charge him with ? No
land can be sold without a person is expressly charged. What
says Canis after quoting the statute, " Provided always that if
any person or persons being assessed or taxed to any lot, or
charge for any lands," &c. And he says page 205, "if an as-
sess or charge of payment be laid upon certain lands
without mentioning the owner, the lands cannot be decreed
from him by this law ; for the words of the statute be,
4 that if any person or persons assessed to any lot or
charge do not pay.' So that I shall take it that no decree
for the sale of land can be made but where there is a person
certainly assessed by came." Let me call the attention of the
Court to the definition of the Decree given by Callis, p. 2e5.
He says, " A decree is neither a law nor ordinance in proper
definition, but is only a sentence of judgment in a course of
justice, delivered or declared by the Judges, thereby and
through the power and strength of a general form, for deer e-
tum est sententia lata super legem. So, that a law is a gene-
ral direction for a multitude. An ordinance is a subordinate

direction, proceeding out of a more general power. And a
decree is a sentence delivered for or against a particular
person, grounded upon the said laws and ordinances."
if this decree should be signed, this Court would be neglecting
a most important point, which arises, in the 2:3d Henry VIII.,
on the words "inhabitant or dwelling thereabouts by the said
said walls, ditches, banks, gutters, gores, sewers, trenches, and
other the said impediments and annoyances, and all those per-
eons and every of tnem to tax, assess, charge, distrain, and
punish." This being a penal clause must be construed lite-
rally. Who is an " inhabitant " in a legal sense ? Coke,
3nst. 2, 702—" Inhabitaiffs of a vill are the householders of a
vill." And so construed tlAtt Legislature when, by " the 52d Geo.
c. 48, local and persoisal," the powers of the Commissioners
of Sew ers for Westminster and parts of Middlesex were enlarged.
" And whereas great diffiCulty has arisen to the Commissioners
of Sewers for the limits aforesaid in laying an equal rate
from time to time upon the several inhabitants within the limits
of the'said Commissions, occasioned by their not being autho-
rised by any of the statutes now in force concerning sewers to
call for and inspect the poor's-rates of the several parishes
within the limits aforesaid ; be it therefore enacted that it
shall b.: lawful for the said Commissioners of Sewers for the
limits aforesaid, from time to time, as the said Commissioners
shall se: occasion, by an order in writing, to direct the clerk
for the time being of the said Commissioners, or any other per-
son *sn their behalf, to inspect and take a copy of the last rate
or assessment tor the relief of the poor of any parish or parishes
within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioners of Sewers,
e. &c. In order to enab,e the said Commissioners of Sewers
to lay an equal rate or assessment on the several inhabitants
within the litnits of the said Commissions or any portion
thereof." And there has been a judicial decision on this
Act of Parliament, and Lord Denman, in the case of
Soady and Wilson, 3 Adolphus and Ellis, 248, thus spoke :
This is an action for trying the validity of a Sewers-rate, im-
posed on the plaintiff as occupier of the Audit-office, in the
eastern wing of Somerset House. The plaintiff contended
that such rate was improperly imposed on him as the occupier,
even if it could be imposed at all in respect of that building,
but that he also denied. A case was agreed upon, stating the
particulars from which the plaintiff's occupation was inferred
by the defendant. On the effect of them we do not find it ne-
cessary to give any opinion, because the 52d George III„ c.
48, gives the power to rate those persons as occupiers, who are
de fret° assessed to the Poor's-rate ; and the plaintiff filling
the latter character with respect to the premisser, is clothed
with the former by the statute referred to. I submit, Sir, that
as we have thus the power by statute, and by the judicial deci-
sion just quoted we have, that as these inhabitants do willingly
and cheerfully contribute all the expenses for the repairing of
the sewers, and the necessary expense of the Commission, thatit
is a duty which this Court owes to them, not to be embarking
in surveys and valuations of prorerty which has neither owner
nor occupier in law chargeable, however advantageous such a
course may be to the two professions thereby benefited ; for these
reasons, I submit the amendment of which I have given notice::
" That the Commissioners do not sign the Decree for a Rate
on the Counters Creek and Ranelagh Presentments ; because
the proceedings of the Court which have led to the said Pre-
sentments, and the Presentments, are void, being contrary to
the Statutes, to the Commission, and the Oath taken by the
Commissioners : because the doctrine laid down to the Jurors,
That the Commis-ioners impo:e the tax on the land, and are
not bound to inquire whose property it is, or to regard any
question of Ownership or Occupation,' is contrary to the Sta-
tutes : because the necessary consequence of such erroneous
doctrine is another ; that having made a Sewers Rate without
any regard to ownership or occupation, a legal distress for the
same can be taken upon :he premises so rated, and any persons
goods found thereon maz be sold for such tax : because, during
these proceedings, the Commissioners have been made aware
that the opinions of 'the Attorney and Solicitor-General and
Sir Frederick Pollock are against them : because if the erro-

11C0113 advice given to the COmmissioners be still farther acted
upon to the signing of the decree, such proceeding will bring
her Majesty's ommission of Sewers into contempt, as being a
trial judgment of a Court of Record N'sltich cannot be carried

into etTeCt, either as to a distress upon or sale of premises
charged by such decree."
Mr. EowA RI) MuLuscs seconded the amendment and
bries;y supported it.
Sir GEORGE FARRANT and Captain BAGUE moved that the
Court do now adjourn, which was carried by Bto 4. Thus,
throwing the whole question overboard by a side wind.